Sender: Charles Bell <•••@••.•••>
On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Cyber Rights wrote:
> Sender: •••@••.•••
>
>
> I guess I must clarify my position. I am of the belief that since I don't
> hack, or do anything else illegal on-line, that if the DOJ deems it necessary
> to watch me and my actions on-line, they are perfectly welcome to. If a
> police officer was to knock on my door, and state that he had reson to
> believe that an illegal activity was occuring in my residence, I would invite
> him in and urge him to find the activity. There would be no *need* for a
> search warrant. The only people, IMHO, who need to worry about wiretaps are
> the people who are going to get caught doing something that they shouldn't.
> It's like the old saying, "If you play with fire, you're going to get
> burned."
>
> Or at least that's *my* spin on things.
>
Why don't you just invite a policeman to move in to your spare room (the
government paying his rent, of course) where he can observe your life
around the clock and happily certify to proper authority that you are
never doing anything wrong?
Or if you don't have a spare room, why not just have a big interactive TV
set in every room that can fulfil the same function?
(Funny...seems someone already suggested that a while back. In 1984.)
Charles Bell
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Sender: Korac <•••@••.•••>
On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Cyber Rights wrote:
> Sender: •••@••.•••
>
> >crime."
>
> Okay, I was wondering what the CPSR position is on the wiretaps? Do yau all
> think, like I that the DOJ's use of taps to find this guy was a perfectly
> legit use of modern technology or do you all believe that they overstepped
> the right of an Argentine national to snoop into "sensitive" files pertaining
> indirectly to National Security?
>
Sure, he hacked into something illegal, and he got burned. That
doesn't mean that abuses of tapping don't occur. How many taps lead
nowhere and were unfounded intrusions on people's rights due to fishing
expeditions? Nobody releases those stats.
> I guess I must clarify my position. I am of the belief that since I don't
> hack, or do anything else illegal on-line, that if the DOJ deems it necessary
> to watch me and my actions on-line, they are perfectly welcome to. If a
> police officer was to knock on my door, and state that he had reson to
> believe that an illegal activity was occuring in my residence, I would invite
> him in and urge him to find the activity. There would be no *need* for a
> search warrant. The only people, IMHO, who need to worry about wiretaps are
> the people who are going to get caught doing something that they shouldn't.
> It's like the old saying, "If you play with fire, you're going to get
> burned."
>
So, as you see it, the only people who want and seek privacy are
criminals? C'mon. You'd consent to "routine searches" at random times,
even at 2 a.m. just to prove you weren't doing anything wrong? You'd be
OK with search checkpoints at every town border, because you know you
don't have any contraband? You'd write all your correspondence on
postcards if the government banned envalopes? Leave copies of your
housekeys with the police in case they feel like searching your house
while you're away? How would you feel about a camera in your home with a
microphone that is internetable by law enforcement, who might like to
"check in" with you from time to time to make sure you aren't doing or
saying anything you shouldn't. All this is what your attitude toward
privacy could lead to.
> Or at least that's *my* spin on things.
>
Glad to see you've resonated with the attitude your kind,
benevolent government wants you to have. You're a good slave, I mean
citizen.
> The one, the only, > OLManiac
> Cincinnati
*******************************************************
"Those that give up essential liberty for a little
security, deserve neither liberty nor security."
- B.Franklin
"When ID's are mandatory, its time to leave the planet."
- Lazarus Long
(a.k.a. R. Heinlein)
*******************************************************
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Sender: •••@••.•••
hi.
olmaniac, you idjit. wiretaps are very, very different from a search by
police. i too would almost definently allow a cop to snoop at my house. on
the other claw, i will never, i repeat NEVER, willingly allow some nosy jerk
to monitor my calls. there are many reasons.
1, under the unconstitutional joy-stab known as the cda, everyone will be
afraid to do anything not allowed in a disney movie, not knowing if a minor
is watching or not. this law also creates one immense area for terrorism and
abuse that no one has mentioned : if someone wanted to stop the conversation
even allowed between adults under the cda, all that he or she would need to
do would be to engage in some grey discussion, perhaps even having to pass
age verifiers, and then let a kid "accidentaly" get access to it. it thus
creates a situation in which a non-criminal act can instantaneously be
converted into a crime with no action taken by the "criminal", and even if,
to the best of attempts, the "perpetrator" tries to stop it. this is a
horrendous future.
2, if i were to let a cop poke around at my place, then i can monitor him or
her and end it at any time if i feel that this has gone far enough. with a
wiretap the entire idea is to conduct it in such a manner that the target may
do none of the above, thus allowing "fishing expeditions" and abuses without
recourse or redress for the violated.
3, and so on.
bye
dicedpupys
:x
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Posted by Andrew Oram - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR)
Cyber-Rights: http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/
ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/
CyberJournal: (WWW or FTP) --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore
Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
