From: Michael Froomkin <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 01:28:14 +0800
To: Ernest Hua <hua@XENON.chromatic.com>
Subject: Re: Ken Bass: Wire tap only useful for conviction (Was: SAFE Forum--some  comments)
In-Reply-To: <199607030102.SAA05930@server1.chromatic.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.960703095739.11742D-100000@viper.law.miami.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Ernest Hua wrote:

> 
> > And here I'll comment on Ken Bass's excellent comments (there were many
> > excellent points).
> > 
> > He pointed out that the driving force for crypto policy is probably the
> > _law enforcement_ camp, not the _intelligence agency_ camp.
> 
> Ken pointed out that law enforcement had to have gotten enough
> evidence prior to a wire tap request to show probable cause.
> If this is the case, then the only usefulness of wire taps is
> to improve the likelihood of conviction and not the detection
> of potential terrorist (or child molestation or your favorite
> bad guy) plots.

I thought Ken Bass was wrong on this point (I agreed with everything else
he said): wiretaps help LEOs identify co-conspirators.  They are not
without intelligence value. 

[This message may have been dictated with Dragon Dictate 2.01. 
Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions.]

A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law | 
U. Miami School of Law     | froomkin@law.miami.edu
P.O. Box 248087            | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's hot here.  And humid.