From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 13:14:59 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Charles Platt on wiretaps, government abuse of power
Message-ID: <v03007808b0523ef85bda@[204.254.21.17]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



[Charles is an author, a Wired contributor, and a friend. --Declan]

------

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 23:28:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <cp@panix.com>

On 26 Sep 1997, Nathaniel Daw wrote:

> >    Indeed, state and local law enforcement authorities account for
> > 50% of all the electronic surveillance court orders in the United
> > States.
>
> Does anyone else find this statistic profoundly shocking, and for
> reasons opposite from Herr Freeh's intent? 50% of surveillance court
> orders come from the Feds?

When I visited EPIC in DC I was told (reliably, I think) that wiretaps are
not in fact a widely used technique in federal law enforcement--at least,
not wiretaps that are done via correct legal procedure, with a court
order.

Subsequently I spoke to a friend whose father is an officer in Indiana
state police; and he was of the opinion that "unofficial" wiretaps at the
local level are relatively common as a means of confirming police
suspicions prior to a fullscale investigation to obtain evidence
admissible in court. (Obviously an illegal wiretap is not admissible.)

Of course this is anecdotal, but it looks to me as if the real use for
wiretaps--in today's society, at least--is as an informal timesaver. Tap
someone's phone for a few days, see if there's anything interesting, and
if there is, THEN pursue a formal investigation.

Of course, Freeh may have ambitions extending far beyond this relatively
trivial, low-level stuff. Even if he didn't, though, you could see that
law enforcement would feel pissed about being deprived (potentially) of a
convenient labor-saving tool. Since it costs Freeh nothing to agitate in
favor of Total Access, why not give it a try? Demand something
unreasonable, then settle for whatever he can get.

As for the Constitution ... this of course is merely an archaic concept
to which officials pay occasional lip service, like lapsed Catholics who
still take communion once in a while, just to keep up appearances.

The one positive aspect of all this is that officials and appointees are
exposing themselves--proudly, without apology--as the unprincipled,
corrupt opportunists we always suspected they were. As the radical British
Member of Parliament Ken Livingstone once remarked (in a public speech):
"When you get into politics, you find that all your worst nightmares about
it turn out to be true, and the people who are attracted to large
concentrations of power are precisely the ones who should be kept as far
away from it as possible."

------------------------------------------------------------------------