The end of the Fourth Amendment

FogStorm fogstorm at mac.com
Sat Oct 27 16:20:19 PDT 2001


On Friday, October 26, 2001, at 10:24  AM, Tim May wrote:

> On Friday, October 26, 2001, at 05:38 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> Too many totalitarian surveillance state measures to comment on, but 
> the "sneak and peek" provision is such a slam dunk violation of the 
> Fourth Amendment that it bears special comment.
>
>>    Other sections of the USA Act, which the House approved by a 357 to 
>> 66
>>    vote on Wednesday, that do not expire include the following:
>>
>>      * Police can sneak into someone's house or office, search the
>>        contents, and leave without ever telling the owner. This would 
>> be
>>        supervised by a court, and the notification of the surreptitious
>>        search "may be delayed" indefinitely. (Section 213)
>
>
> Anyone caught inside a house or office should be dealt with in the most 
> expeditiious manner possible.

Most people who detect an intruder in their homes going through their 
stuff
aren't going to think "This must be a government agent performing an 
appropriately authorized black bag job." They're going to think "Holy 
shit! There's a criminal in my house." and do whatever they feel is 
necessary to defend their loved ones.

So lets say a hypothetical woman named "Sue" ventilates "Agent Smith" 
(who she perceives as a burglar & possibly a rapist) with her twelve 
gauge. Will she be charged with a crime? Will she be "detained" until 
such time as the Feds have finished determining her involvement with 
terrorism? If she asserts her fifth amendment right to not answer 
questions will the FBI torture her until she "admits" she is a terrorist?





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list