From: jktaber@netcom.com (John K. Taber)
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 94 12:28:11 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re:  NYT article "traditional", my ass.
Message-ID: <199406051928.OAA26507@netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Forwarded message:
> From owner-cypherpunks@toad.com Sat Jun  4 17:47:37 1994
> Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 16:43:19 -0700
> From: peb@netcom.com (Paul E. Baclace)
> Message-Id: <199406042343.QAA07231@netcom.com>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re:  NYT article
> Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
> Precedence: bulk
> 
> Does anyone find the following somewhat distorted:  "...White House
> and Justice Department officials have argued forcefully that is a 
> necessary information-age compromise between the constitutional
> right to privacy and the *traditional* powers of law enforcement
> officials."   [my emphasis]  If wiretapping laws were passed 
> in 1968, I don't consider that *traditional*.  Is Markoff speaking
> about surveillance in exceedingly general terms?
> 
> 
> Paul E. Baclace
> peb@netcom.com
> 

Yes, I found it distorted.  My question for John Markoff, if he would be
kind enough to answer, is:  is "traditional" his word, or was it his
source's?  If source's, was source DoJ, or White House?

IMO, police wiretapping usurped a power forbidden to it by the Fourth.  To
call usurped power "traditional" is pretty smarmy.