I have read the filing it's another step down the road. True all comms
are subject to intercept _already_ what is desired is a way to _easily_
perform the intercept and the easily part is the kicker. Some things
should be hard especially where civil rights are involved.
See all the light and noise about the MATRIX system which is simply a
means of collecting and indexing information which is already available to
LEA's.
However MATRIX removes the step of asking the provider for information
on a individual basis hence law abiding people are now in the position of
having their information searched without the oversight of the judicial
system in "fishing expeditions".
Human nature being what it is the act of having to ask a judge to grant
access to the information keeps honest people honest and judges almost
never deny this type of request. In a perfect world we would not need
locks on our doors, passwords for our systems. In situations like this
who watches the watchers?. Currently a judge does in the future...
Scott C. McGrath
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Scott McGrath wrote:
> > What is desired here is a system by which all communications
> > originating/or terminating at $DESIGNATED_TARGET can be intercepted with
> > no intervention by and/or knowledge of the carrier hence ensuring the
> > security of the investigation.
>
> I don't think that is correct. Read the Justice Department's filing.
>
> With correct legal authorization, law enforcement already has access to
> any electronic communications through a carrier.
>
>
> >From the Washington Post:
> The Justice Department wants to significantly expand the government's
> ability to monitor online traffic, proposing that providers of high-speed
> Internet service should be forced to grant easier access for FBI
> wiretaps and other electronic surveillance, according to documents and
> government officials.
>
> A petition filed this week with the Federal Communications Commission
> also suggests that consumers should be required to foot the bill.
>
> Is this a modem tax by another name. Should every ISP add a fee to their
> subscriber's bill to pay for it?
>
> Read the filing.
>
