Re: Wiretapping v warrants
At 10:42 AM 4/20/96 -0500, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:
Here's a question, however: What, exactly, stands between the way it is supposedly done, today, and wiretapping with none of these "protections."
First and foremost Congress,
But were these "protections" the product of a law passed by Congress?
then the Judicial system
I'm feeling much better....NOT!
and finally the people themselves.
It's called "Right to Keep and Bear Arms."
And another question I've never seen a satisfactory answer for: Why is there not an automatic policy to inform the person tapped, at least after the tap is removed, analogous to the level of information the victim of a search warrant normally gets?
Since I'm not exactly sure whether the targets of a wiretap are ever informed that their conversations were monitored if they aren't later prosecuted using the info gained through the wiretap, I couldn't really comment on why if that is the case.
The reason you don't know is simply that there is no _Constitutional_ reason. There is merely a practical one: The act of wiretapping does not automatically inform those tapped, in the same way that service of a search warrant does, so the government CONVEEEENIENTLY forgets to tell them. Most government suck-ups don't even want to address this issue; they have no explanation. Unlike them, you acknowledged that you weren't away of the reason why.
Personally, I think a better example could be used. When a person is placed under visual surveilance they also are uninformed that their actions are being scrutinized. Their conversations can be picked up using high powered microphones and they can be plainly seen with binoculars or even night vision goggles. I would assume that they probably aren't informed after the fact either unless the surveilance is used against them in court.
I seem to recall a news item from Washington state within the last couple of years in which a conviction was thrown out because evidence was obtained with thermal-IR imagers. You know, look for the hot house and it's being used to grow pot. Problem is, that kind of viewing is not normally publicly apparent, so a citizen has a reasonable belief that it can't be used against him. In another case, in Oregon, the use of night-vision goggles to observe people (at least in collecting evidence) was thrown out, for the same reason: Even if, arguably, people were out "in public," they had a reasonable expectation that they would not be observed if they were careful to remain in the dark. One more thing: Until about 1968, the private use of tiny recording microphones, in public, was essentially unlimited. About that year, in many states, it was restricted. (In some states it's illegal to record conversations by surreptitious means, EVEN IF you're a party to that conversation. How bizarre!) My theory is that politicians recognized, correctly, that they would be the ones most subject to such recording, and since they engaged in incriminating (bribery) conversations fairly regularly, they didn't want lobbyists to be able to collect a series of recorded conversations that could later be used against the politician if they later fell out of favor.
Regardless, I think that if people aren't informed that they were the subject of an investigation after they are cleared, they should be. Bruce Marshall
The reason I consider "the system" to be so crooked is that it tries to get away with things like this whenever it can. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:
At 10:42 AM 4/20/96 -0500, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:
Here's a question, however: What, exactly, stands between the way it is supposedly done, today, and wiretapping with none of these "protections."
First and foremost Congress,
But were these "protections" the product of a law passed by Congress?
As I do not qualify as a legal historian or expert I don't have any definitive answer for you on this point. My guess would be that it lies somewhere in the bowels of the legal system. I recall hearing about some early cases involving operators listening in on telephone calls (which I believe they are still able to do as long as it is random and for purposes of "service checks") and how this was declared a violation of privacy to the calling parties.
then the Judicial system
I'm feeling much better....NOT!
Obviously not a flawless and perfect branch of government, but what is?
and finally the people themselves.
It's called "Right to Keep and Bear Arms."
More likely, the "Right to Vote Out the Incumbents."
Since I'm not exactly sure whether the targets of a wiretap are ever informed that their conversations were monitored if they aren't later prosecuted using the info gained through the wiretap, I couldn't really comment on why if that is the case.
The reason you don't know is simply that there is no _Constitutional_ reason. There is merely a practical one: The act of wiretapping does not automatically inform those tapped, in the same way that service of a search warrant does, so the government CONVEEEENIENTLY forgets to tell them. Most government suck-ups don't even want to address this issue; they have no explanation. Unlike them, you acknowledged that you weren't away of the reason why.
I also think the majority of us can look at that and say "what a bad thing." But the real question is what we want to do about it.
I seem to recall a news item from Washington state within the last couple of years in which a conviction was thrown out because evidence was obtained with thermal-IR imagers. You know, look for the hot house and it's being used to grow pot. Problem is, that kind of viewing is not normally publicly apparent, so a citizen has a reasonable belief that it can't be used against him. In another case, in Oregon, the use of night-vision goggles to observe people (at least in collecting evidence) was thrown out, for the same reason: Even if, arguably, people were out "in public," they had a reasonable expectation that they would not be observed if they were careful to remain in the dark.
Throw out the IR gogs then and look at the rest of the picture. You still have the binoculars, the dish microphones and plain old eyes. Dosn't this pose a more reasonable comparison to your original topic of wiretaps? I have a feeling though that IR vision will become more accepted by the courts as a valid means of surveilance as its use increases.
One more thing: Until about 1968, the private use of tiny recording microphones, in public, was essentially unlimited. About that year, in many states, it was restricted. (In some states it's illegal to record conversations by surreptitious means, EVEN IF you're a party to that conversation. How bizarre!)
And unconveinent for those of us who would like to be able to record our conversations without the explicit permission of the other party.
My theory is that politicians recognized, correctly, that they would be the ones most subject to such recording, and since they engaged in incriminating (bribery) conversations fairly regularly, they didn't want lobbyists to be able to collect a series of recorded conversations that could later be used against the politician if they later fell out of favor.
While that may have been some of their original intentions for passing such a bill, do you think people who are already involved in illegal activities would stop and think "Wait a minute, I can't ILLEGALLY record this bribe,"? Such blackmails surely continue.
The reason I consider "the system" to be so crooked is that it tries to get away with things like this whenever it can.
Well, think about the situation. The number of people who aren't prosecuted after a wiretap is likely a small fraction of the whole number of wiretaps (then again, how do we know?). The number that find out they were under observation but not prosecuted is even more likely nil. So, where are your chances to challenge this in court? Where are the test cases? Admitedly, Congress shouldn't have to wait for a case to take action to change this practice, but I doubt they are going to make a fuss about it before anyone else does. Bruce Marshall
participants (2)
-
Bruce Marshall -
jim bell