From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Mon Apr 29 2002 - 10:26:53 MDT
Mike Lorrey writes:
> A wire-tap is a data shunt attached to a line by a third party who is
> not authorized by both parties involved in the contract for that line.
> For the government to do so within its own jurisdiction is ONLY illegal
> in that evidence gathered by wiretaps not authorized by a judge is
> inadmissibile in court (as is any evidence derived from that gathered by
> the tap).
I'm not sure about this, I thought there was a presumption of privacy
which would restrict what the government could do without a court order.
> This distinction is of primary importance in the intelligence community.
> When it comes to intelligence operations which are going to result in
> covert action rather than criminal charges levied in court, an
> intelligence agency has no legal need to obtain a court order for a wire
> tap.
But you're saying that if they don't intend to use it in court, any
government agency can wiretap anywhere in the U.S. without restriction?
> Where the law comes into play on the domestic scene is that the only
> federal agency empowered to wire-tap within the territorial US is the
> FBI, since they are in charge of domestic counter-intelligence. The
> CIA/NSA/NRO/DIA/etc are all banned by post-Watergate/ABSCAM era laws
> against spying on American citizens within our borders. They are free to
> eavesdrop on anybody they want outside our borders, and require no court
> order to do so. This situation is reciprocated by the British.
So now you are saying that only the FBI can wiretap in the U.S.? But
if they are not going to use the results in court, do they need a court
order or not? Earlier you said that the government does NOT need a court
order to wiretap if they aren't going to use it in court.
> As a result, the British spy on American citizens for the US government,
> and the US govt spies on British citizens for the British government.
> Just part and parcel of the 'special relationship' we have between us.
Now this doesn't make any sense at all, given the above. Either the
data is going to be used in court or not. If not, you said above the
the U.S. government can wiretap on its own citizens with impunity.
So there would be no need to use the British. If the data is going to
be used in court, are you saying that the government would walk in and
say, we couldn't wiretap this American citizen, so we got the British
to wiretap him for us, and here is the result of this British wiretap
on American soil? That's hard to believe.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:41 MST