Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 8 Jan 2007 06:30 In article <enqpqn$8qk_002(a)s980.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45A0E100.62E7E990(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >> >>> >> So you've already realized that privacy does not include landlines. >>> >> Why do you think it is going to include broadcasts over thru the air? >>> >> >>> >> I don't understand this logic. >>> > >>> >The tap would have been put in place _after_ a warrant was issued. Do you >>> >see how that is different. >>> >>> And that's how it works today. There is a difference between a phone >>> tap and sampling hundreds of sounds for certain utterances. >> >>No there isn't ! > >You should try to think this one through a little bit more. >You might start with radio and TV transmissions. > >/BAH Which use the public airwaves. Not the same as a private conversation between 2 people on a phone.
From: Lloyd Parker on 8 Jan 2007 06:34 In article <6617a$45a169c9$cdd08444$3914(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:enqpqn$8qk_002(a)s980.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>In article <45A0E100.62E7E990(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>> >>>>>>>So you've already realized that privacy does not include landlines. >>>>>>>Why do you think it is going to include broadcasts over thru the air? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I don't understand this logic. >>>>>> >>>>>>The tap would have been put in place _after_ a warrant was issued. Do >>>>>>you >>>>>>see how that is different. >>>>> >>>>>And that's how it works today. There is a difference between a phone >>>>>tap and sampling hundreds of sounds for certain utterances. >>>> >>>>No there isn't ! >>> >>>You should try to think this one through a little bit more. >>>You might start with radio and TV transmissions. >> >> >> If you are going to try and use semantic arguments you need to become a bit >> more accurate with your own terminology. >> >> And there isn't really a difference between monitoring everything one person >> says and monitoring everything every one says - other than scale. > > From a legal standpoint I wish you'd give this some more >thought, more along a political science line. > >Consider strangers on a busy street, say in London or NYC, >unknown to one another, overhearing one another's >conversation as they pass by. > >Probably no harm no foul in that. > No harm if one of them is being tailed by the police who overhear it either. That's a public street. If they are talking in their home, it's illegal for the police to do it. >Overhearing, or even overt or covert listening has no impact >unless and until the information has a use not compliant to >the wishes or benefit of the individual speaking. > >Where your personal wishes are concerned, you'd prefer no >third uninvited party ever overhear or listen in on your >conversations whether on the street or on a telephone. But >there are other realities in play. > >The premise in the laws as written usually aren't entirely >honest. Where they say that the government may not listen in >on your conversations without either your permission or a >proper warrant, the real consequence, this is realpolitik >at work here, is that when the government does listen in >they're not permitted to use the information they acquired >against you. > >When they overhear something that sounds like a violation >of laws they are, in the US anyway, permitted to go get a >retroactive warrant. > No, that's not how it works. That's tainted evidence and cannot be used to justify a warrant. Try it and the evidence seized will be thrown out, for example. >Generally speaking the police, and government in general, >isn't held accountable for lying to you, Yes they are. Cases are dismissed for just that. >but you can be >held accountable for lying to them. > >None of this is intended to be equitable. The state always >has an advantage. > >Just as we've agreed that airport security is designed more >to give people the appearance of security without any real >substance, I maintain the anti-wiretapping laws are established >for precisely the same reason and very much to the same effect. > >The FSU had a constitution that read much like the US >constitution. Laws alone don't mean anything. > >In the eastern block in the 1980's they instituted anti pollution >laws. Of course the polluters were government entities with >inadequate budgets so they were unable to meet the requirements >of the new laws. > >They were fined under the new laws. So the money went from one >pocket into another within the same government. But what they >were attempting to achieve was the appearance that they were >aboard the anti pollution movement along with the rest of >Europe. As far as it went, that worked at the time. > So you're saying American laws mean no more than Soviet ones? >The fact that you believe yourself immune from wiretap because >there are strict laws against it in the UK means the laws have >met their intent. > >Perhaps this once the US is more honest in our crookedness.
From: Lloyd Parker on 8 Jan 2007 06:29 In article <enqou0$8ss_011(a)s980.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <enq1pe$cuv$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <eno667$8ss_005(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <enm0ff$6ka$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>[....] >>>>How do you like Bush asserting he's got the right to open and read >>>first-class >>>>mail? >>[....] >>>Now, whether you like it or not, we are at war. The news >>>reports have not specified which mails are in question nor >>>any facts about this news bite from CBS. >> >>It has been spelled out on several news casts. Here's the text that >>causes the most concern: >> >>******* Begin quote ******** >>The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as >>enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an >>item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner >>consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct >>searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and >>safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches >>specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection. >>******************* >> >>Note that it applies to all mail of any kind. The claim is one of quite >>broad authority since the definition of "exigent circumstances" is quite >>wide. > >How are you going to make it more specific? Should there be legal >handcuffs on inspections even if new types of containers are dripping >powder or tick or can't be x-rayed or zapped to kill bacteria? The law does allow for inspection if it is believed the mail contains something harmful. Bush went beyond that. >ARe you really insisting that a law be passed for each and every >new method people use to transport deadly materials? Congress >can't pick which toilet paper to use within 12 months. > >You're being silly. > >/BAH >
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 8 Jan 2007 13:07 On Mon, 08 Jan 07 11:30:26 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <enqpqn$8qk_002(a)s980.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <45A0E100.62E7E990(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> >> >>>> >> So you've already realized that privacy does not include landlines. >>>> >> Why do you think it is going to include broadcasts over thru the air? >>>> >> >>>> >> I don't understand this logic. >>>> > >>>> >The tap would have been put in place _after_ a warrant was issued. Do you >>>> >see how that is different. >>>> >>>> And that's how it works today. There is a difference between a phone >>>> tap and sampling hundreds of sounds for certain utterances. >>> >>>No there isn't ! >> >>You should try to think this one through a little bit more. >>You might start with radio and TV transmissions. >> >>/BAH > >Which use the public airwaves. Not the same as a private conversation between >2 people on a phone. And even in that case, the laws regarding interception of communications, codified in the FCC rules about the subject, are quite clear. Section 605 of the 1934 Communications Act states: "No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. No person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) knowing that such communication was intercepted, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto." Congress also made it very clear, in Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 ("1968 Wiretap Act") that wiretapping was to be an investigative means of __"last resort."__ The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 ("ECPA") extended privacy protections to a new set of technologies such as email, cellular phones and paging devices � reflecting Congress's clear intent that privacy rights keep pace with technological advances. Warrantless electronic surveillance for "national security" was actually addressed by the Supreme Court decades ago. In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 363-64 (1967), in a concurring opinion, Justice White then sought to preserve a future possibility of electronic surveillance in "national security cases" as permissible without prior judicial approval _only_ upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General. White's opinion might have been a basis for this administration, I suppose. The executive branch then tried to assert a power to wiretap and to "bug" in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of inherent presidential power. But then, in the Supreme Court case, United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 302-08 (1972), instead withdrawing themselves to an argument that such surveillance was a "reasonable" search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. I suppose they knew that they would not win on the basis of calling back White's argument to the fore. Unanimously, the Supreme Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. This protection was even more needed in "national security cases" than in cases of "ordinary" crime, he continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. Actually, this is an important distinction, too. The most protected speech in the US is _political_ speech. The very highest standards of free speech are applied in cases where political speech is involved (I could add cases to this point, but I've done enough above for now.) So Justice Powell exactly nailed the question down when he pointed out that it was exactly in the case of "national security" that the requirement of warrants under the 4th Amendment was all the more important! Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 8 Jan 2007 13:15
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 18:07:02 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >gurarantee um... guarantee... oh, well. Jon |