So what -- wiretaps
A busy period just past so no blogs.
But this morning I can't help but give a big "so what" to the wiretap thing that represents the latest media attempt to hang Bush. Oh, but the left cries "its illegal!!" And right wingers puff up and proclaim that it was necessary for national security. You're both correct.
But so what? Look, if you have to wait for the US court system to grant you a pass to listen, you will never hear a thing, and we would leave ourselves open to any Abdul, Rahman or Harry that wants to bomb us. The world should have learned from Spain and London, that our friendly terrorist use the phones -- particularly cell phones -- to do their work. So let's listen for patterns (yes, isn't that some form of cyber-profiling) to try and spot who is busy plotting against us.
The NSA is possibly the single largest "wiretap" organization in the world -- or even the rest of the world combined. They are pretty good at what they do. So we should use them. And not just for foreign traffic or traffic to and from foreign jurisdictions, but internally too. I like the idea of 72 hours and then they have to go to a judge -- but that gives them a leg up to find out what it up. And they can't do 71 hours, wait for an hour and then 71 more hours. 72 hours and you that's it: warrant or hang up. In the modern super-paced world we cannot depend on old fashioned notions of due process and search and seizure. We'll lose the war that way. But we can demand due process and quash any evidence that was obtained in advance of the warrant: if you are listening for 6 hours and the stuff is good -- go to the judge if you want to use the evidence. Most often however, this is not the sort of evidence to be used in a court room anyway, so who cares about admissibility of the evidence? The 4th Amendment would not really apply in the first place. It is more about finding out what you need to know to prevent an attack: that is in the national interest. And if you are just Joe Shmoe walking down the street talking about drugs ... which you should not be anyway, you are an idiot for using your mobile phone, you are also protected from the use of that information as evidence against you in a court of law. But perhaps, the Fuzz could be waiting for you when you next take a shipment of herb: I would not be against that.... A slippery slope to be sure, but if you keep your nose clean, so what?
But this morning I can't help but give a big "so what" to the wiretap thing that represents the latest media attempt to hang Bush. Oh, but the left cries "its illegal!!" And right wingers puff up and proclaim that it was necessary for national security. You're both correct.
But so what? Look, if you have to wait for the US court system to grant you a pass to listen, you will never hear a thing, and we would leave ourselves open to any Abdul, Rahman or Harry that wants to bomb us. The world should have learned from Spain and London, that our friendly terrorist use the phones -- particularly cell phones -- to do their work. So let's listen for patterns (yes, isn't that some form of cyber-profiling) to try and spot who is busy plotting against us.
The NSA is possibly the single largest "wiretap" organization in the world -- or even the rest of the world combined. They are pretty good at what they do. So we should use them. And not just for foreign traffic or traffic to and from foreign jurisdictions, but internally too. I like the idea of 72 hours and then they have to go to a judge -- but that gives them a leg up to find out what it up. And they can't do 71 hours, wait for an hour and then 71 more hours. 72 hours and you that's it: warrant or hang up. In the modern super-paced world we cannot depend on old fashioned notions of due process and search and seizure. We'll lose the war that way. But we can demand due process and quash any evidence that was obtained in advance of the warrant: if you are listening for 6 hours and the stuff is good -- go to the judge if you want to use the evidence. Most often however, this is not the sort of evidence to be used in a court room anyway, so who cares about admissibility of the evidence? The 4th Amendment would not really apply in the first place. It is more about finding out what you need to know to prevent an attack: that is in the national interest. And if you are just Joe Shmoe walking down the street talking about drugs ... which you should not be anyway, you are an idiot for using your mobile phone, you are also protected from the use of that information as evidence against you in a court of law. But perhaps, the Fuzz could be waiting for you when you next take a shipment of herb: I would not be against that.... A slippery slope to be sure, but if you keep your nose clean, so what?
posted by Zaphod at Tuesday, December 20, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home