You bet they have/are: NSA/CIA to snoop INSIDE the U.S.???

** Reply by attila to note from Anonymous User <nobody@c2.org> 06/08/96   
	5:05pm -0700

	anyone who believes the FBI and a host of other U.S. agencies even 
    less scrupulous does not wiretap without permits, has been standing behind 
    the door. generally, it does not matter if the information learned is 
    admissable in court  --they never admit wiretapping in the first place as  
    the agency themselves, in many cases, *did*not*wiretap*  --but the agency 
    does buy info from usually unsavory "contractors" who do wiretap.

	as for the NSA/CIA spying on US citizens --they dont, they spy on 
    British citizens with facilities provided by M5 and M6.  in return, 
    British M5/6 agents spy on U.S. citizens from Langely or Gaithersberg, or 
    wherever.  The fact they just happen to share information is an 
    "accident."  

	so, why legalize it? --if it aint broke, don't fix it.

	when the great sleeping, well-fed dog awakes in slavery, they will 
    look for the "false"-prophets who have long since been purged by the 
    adversary government   --and fools like Baker-Halle will be in power 
    (temporarily).

    --- original post by anon-remailer ---

= : This is a fucking big story.
= : Allowing the CIA and NSA to snoop domestically, and using only a handful  
of
= : suspicions and anecdotes about cybernastiness and evil cryptohackers to
= : justify this major policy shift -- well, it's fucking amazing.
= : Nunn's proposal, unfortunately, was more than a "suggestion."
= 
= This is very serious. Why has there not been more discussion about 
= this on the list?
= 
= How close/far is this from becoming law?
= 
= If they are now trying to make it legal for the CIA and NSA to snoop 
= inside the US  I would guess that it's happening already. Remember
= wiretaps? Do it now and they will make it legal later.


--
The result of today's 'government' 
  is new world disorder, unfolding at warp velocity.

> anyone who believes the FBI and a host of other U.S. agencies even 
> less scrupulous does not wiretap without permits, has been standing behind 
> the door. generally, it does not matter if the information learned is 
> admissable in court  --they never admit wiretapping in the first place as  
> the agency themselves, in many cases, *did*not*wiretap*  --but the agency 
> does buy info from usually unsavory "contractors" who do wiretap.

Here is where I'm totally amazed (aghast ... maybe I'm just too naive):
(And, yes, I have asked this question, in different words, to a lawyer
crowd.)

It is clear that if the FBI/CIA/NSA/ATF/DoS intercepts a message with
some very important content, like, say, I (Ernest Hua) was plotting to
kill Hillary, then they can use that information to start investigating
my activities, even if the intercept turned out to be illegal.  Those
who saw the content of this intercept is not required by law to "forget"
that they ever saw it.

In this day and age, having discretionary access to information is a lot
of power which the average citizen does not have.  Even just the ability
for an entity to see information which it legally may not intercept
gives that entity a lot more power than I would ever want to grant them.
I am sure a networked video camera in every room, street corner, and
passenger car is one of the FBI's wet dreams.

No thanks.

Human beings are human beings, and we all have flaws.  That is why there
are companies in Britain selling videos of people caught in the act of
doing something private in a public place.

(Of course, if I were Hillary in this scenario, then I would wish that
the FBI/et al has god-like powers to do anything to stop me, but that
would be an emotionally charged argument and not a rational one.)

Ern

On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, Ernest Hua wrote:

> > anyone who believes the FBI and a host of other U.S. agencies even 
> > less scrupulous does not wiretap without permits, has been standing behind 
> > the door. generally, it does not matter if the information learned is 
> > admissable in court  --they never admit wiretapping in the first place as  
> > the agency themselves, in many cases, *did*not*wiretap*  --but the agency 
> > does buy info from usually unsavory "contractors" who do wiretap.
> 
> Here is where I'm totally amazed (aghast ... maybe I'm just too naive):
> (And, yes, I have asked this question, in different words, to a lawyer
> crowd.)
> 
> It is clear that if the FBI/CIA/NSA/ATF/DoS intercepts a message with
> some very important content, like, say, I (Ernest Hua) was plotting to
> kill Hillary, then they can use that information to start investigating
> my activities, even if the intercept turned out to be illegal.  Those
> who saw the content of this intercept is not required by law to "forget"
> that they ever saw it.

If they intend to prosecute in a U.S. court they are.

Which crowd of lawyers was this?  Must have been after open bar.

Look it up, the doctrine is called "fruit of the poisonous tree."

In your example, the evidence would be refered to the FBI or the Secret
Service, or more likely both provided the intercept clerk's superior
wanted to even expose the existance of the intercept program to begin
with- unlikely in my experience.  From there, it being fairly clear that
the intercept was illegal to the FBI / Secret Service, they may visit and
see if they can dig up a plausible explanation as to how they "really" got
interested in your activities, but refering to the intercept is right out.

See e.g., United States v. United States District Court (Keith), 407 U.S.
297 (1972); Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (1969).

Warantless surveillance can only be used in criminal prosecutions where
the "primary purpose" of the surveillance is intelligence.  United States
v. Megahey, 553 F.Supp. 1180, 1189-1190 (E.D.N.Y. 1982).

That evidence will have to survive a hearing on exclusion.  Highly
unlikely if you were accidently overheard.

Judges are protective of their jurisdiction.

> 
> Ern
> 

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com

> > It is clear that if the FBI/CIA/NSA/ATF/DoS intercepts a message with
> > some very important content, like, say, I (Ernest Hua) was plotting to
> > kill Hillary, then they can use that information to start investigating
> > my activities, even if the intercept turned out to be illegal.  Those
> > who saw the content of this intercept is not required by law to "forget"
> > that they ever saw it.
> 
> If they intend to prosecute in a U.S. court they are.
>
> Which crowd of lawyers was this?  Must have been after open bar.

An US DoJ attorney, but that may not say much.

> Look it up, the doctrine is called "fruit of the poisonous tree."

We discussed this doctine, but it was pointed out to me that as long
as they can come up with some plausible alternative reason for having
the information related to the intercept (say, they were bugging some
suspicious neighbor and "accidentally" tap the wrong phone line) then
I would never find out that the real intercept ever took place.

By law, technically, the phone company/tapping party would have to
let me know that I had been tapped in 30 days.  In practice, I wonder.

> That evidence will have to survive a hearing on exclusion.  Highly
> unlikely if you were accidently overheard.

Yes.  We discussed this part too.

Ern