On Mon, Aug 20, 2007, Gadi Cohen wrote about "Re: [OT] Online privacy, police to have free access to IP addresses": > Exactly, but that's just the point... in any sane democracy there are > structures in place to prevent such abuses taking place. Like before I > gave my example of police needing to obtain a search warrant before they > can break into someone's house, they need to prove that such action is > necessary to someone other than themselves, and be able to back up their > claim. If that wasn't the case, do you not think the ability to search > people's houses would be abused? Such power needs to be monitored; its > a matter of protecting our society from human nature.
This is getting more and more off-topic, but I'll bite... I don't disagree with you, but I'm trying to explain why the opposite view is not the view of the devil, but simply a different (even if wrong) view. You say that in order to prevent police from abusing their power, they should have to get a-priori (before the fact) approval for searches they conduct. This makes sense, and is indeed how we grew up to think, and as I said this sort of thinking is especially strong in the US, with their fourth amendment. However, look at the other powers the police have, which are far more serious than searching of evesdropping. The police have guns, and can shoot you, for example. Before a policeman shoots you, does he need to get written authorization from a judge? No, of course not. But he knows that *after* the fact, he will be judged, and if he abused his power, he's going to jail for a long time. Similarly, it is not inconcievable to imagine a state where Internet evesdropping is legal for the police, but a policeman knows that if he's ever caught doing it for any other reason but his official work, he'll go to jail. This doesn't make this a totalitarian state, if the police, judicial system, and the government, are still three separate entities which don't cover each other's asses. P.S. Looking at American history is always interesting for putting the relative importance of rights into perspective. As late as 1860, Americans considered sacred the need for a judge to sign on searches before they happen (the 4th amendment) and considered holy the right to own a weapon (the 2nd amendment); But at the same time, they also allowed slavery, forbidden married women from signing contracts or owning property, and forbidden both women and slaves from voting. It's not hard to get the feeling that something was terribly screwed up in this value system. -- Nadav Har'El | Tuesday, Aug 21 2007, 7 Elul 5767 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |----------------------------------------- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Long periods of drought are always http://nadav.harel.org.il |followed by rain. ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
