From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 06:36:46 +0800
To: Bruce Marshall <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Wiretapping v warrants
Message-ID: <m0uAhuj-00090KC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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