From: Ernest Hua <hua@chromatic.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 03:01:43 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: Denning vs. Gilmore
In-Reply-To: <199607300322.UAA02252@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <199607301534.IAA03899@server1.chromatic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> > In some cases, that access must be surreptitious. 
> 
> But some of us consider such access to be unconstitutional, however "useful" 
> you may believe it to be.  In the past, the government has had the extreme 
> luxury of not being forced to convince the public of its "right" to wiretap. 
>
> Now, the advance of technology is forcing the question of such approval to 
> be answered, and the Denning-types are getting really worried that the 
> public isn't going to give that approval.  Tough!

While I may not necessarily agree that government has never been forced
to convince the public (some courts, acting as an agent of the public on
Constitutional issues, have ruled that wire taps should only be allowed
on the narrowest of basis to avoid breach of privacy), I do feel that
you have stated the most important point in terms of privacy violations.

It is clear that law enforcement has used intercepts much more than it
has been legally allowed.  Afterall, if they truly ask a judge (and they
even have stream lined courts just for this purpose) for every intercept
needed, then they do not have to worry about capacity or escrowed length
limits, right?

The point is that they ARE exceeding the official count of intercepts,
and they ARE trying to intercept without warrants.  That is why they are
asking for all of this.

In the face of this overwhelming evidence of abuse, I absolutely refuse
to give my keys to anyone without my personal review of the "evidence"
against me.

Ern