RE: legality of wiretapping: a "key" distinction

At 11:54 PM 10/9/96 -0700, blanc wrote:
>From:	Black Unicorn [in reply to Vlad the Conqueror]
>
>I understand that it's difficult for you to grasp how firmly entrenched
>the concept of wiretapping is in law enforcement, courts and the
>legislature, and that your novel new approach has been tried before.
>..................................................................
>
>This should help him understand it.   I won't say who this quote is from, 
but he was a very respected French author:
>	"Both the English and the Americans have kept the law of precedents; that 
is to say, they still derive their opinions in legal matters and the 
judgements they should pronounce from the opinions and legal judgements of 
their fathers. [...]


Unicorn's response was inadvertently hilarious.  He says that wiretapping is 
"firmly entrenched" in law-enforcement, but the truth is that it was 
"firmly entrenched" long before it was even legal!

Ironically he said it, despite the fact that wiretapping is comparatively 
rare.  Perjury, "drop guns," faking and planting evidence, accepting bribes, 
strongarming suspects, and similar techniques are probably far more commonly 
used than wiretapping ever was, but I don't see Unicorn describing those as 
"firmly entrenched" even though that would be an accurate characterization.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote:

> Unicorn's response was inadvertently hilarious.  He says that wiretapping is 
> "firmly entrenched" in law-enforcement, but the truth is that it was 
> "firmly entrenched" long before it was even legal!

Yep, seems right to me. While I share some part of your position on the 
undesirability of wiretapping, Uni's remarks about it being "firmly 
entrenched" in the minds of L.E. and Capitol Hill are quite on-target.

Few here in DC believe in an absolute right to privacy.

-Declan


// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //