Watch your language, Shabbir.

[JonWienke at aol.com]

In a message dated 96-04-14 15:10:21 EDT, you write:

>I see no legal reason why wiretaps should have the "features" listed above.
 
>There is a certain practical reason they can:  Due to the nature of 
>wiretapping, it is not physically necessary to show up to do the tap, or 
>tell those targeted, or tell them after the tap has been disconnected.  
>However, it seems very unlikely that the mere fact that an invention allows 
>a kind of search that was possible before, should automatically change the 
>interpretation of the Constitution to allow that search.
>
>If a new invention allowed the cops to walk through walls untraceably, would

>that automatically mean that the normal protections that search warrants are

>supposed to provide are no longer valid?  I don't think so!

Mandating that phone companies allow wiretaps is analogous to mandating that
all houses be constructed of Plexiglas, with the shades on the outside, so
the gov't can look in at their leisure.