(resend) Michael: Have you forgotten what list you're on? Unlawful government eavesdropping should not primarily be fought in Washington. It should be fought with technology. The ACLU and EPIC are good for defensive battles only, and when it comes to restraining government surveillance, they lose more than they win. -Declan On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 10:11:46AM -0700, Michael Motyka wrote: > I understand Tim's killfiling of you. You are not responding to what I > wrote but are attributing to me by the snips you make what was written > by others. What I said was very simple : > > the ability of government or anyone else to tap or misuse personal > information should be fought via legal channels : ra-ra ACLU, EPIC, CDT > > assume that there will be taps and abuses anyway : who it is doesn't > matter > > most importantly we should guard our right to guard our own privacy : > the petit Hitlers we share our country with invade our privacy > constantly and want to outlaw countermeasures. > > mm > > It might just be because I'm reading Brin's "Transparent Society," but: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 10:37:12AM -0700, Michael Motyka wrote: > > >> The FBI says such automated monitoring is necessary to perform > > >> surveillance on packet-switched networks, and successfully persuaded > > >> Congress in 1994 to require telephone companies to make their digital > > >> networks readily snoopable. The bulk of legal wiretaps are used to > > >> investigate drug-related crimes, according to annual statistics > > >> published by the U.S. federal court system. > > > > > >Making digital networks "tap ready" isn't necessarily a bad thing, in > > >itself. I could imagine certain situations where one would want to be able > > >to apply the wiretap as soon as the warrant was issued. > > Why limit taps to law enforcement? If the tapping capability is > there, for any form of communication, shouldn't anyone, with any > reason, be able to get access to tap (with NO permission)? > > [chop] >
