Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, January 7, 2009 06:29 PM

  Arne@4:03pm

  As the subject's the same, and the real "items" sought (the conversations, etc.) are the same, I don't have much issue with broadening the wiretaps to allow the "roving wiretap" ... as long as there's probable cause for the tap in the first place!!!!

  Part of the problem with this logic is it makes the same assumption that the FISA revisions do. It completely ignores the fact that the third party being searched also has fourth amendment protections.

  The fourth amendment protects both the target and any third party that is searched when pursuing information on the target. The idea that communications providers, from AT&T to the kid running a mail server in their dorm, somehow have less fourth amendment protections, because they provide communications services, is pernicious and ass backwards.

  If we replace "voice communications" with "hunting knife", the idea of a warrant that didn't specify the place to be searched would be absurd. It would be a blank check to search every house.

  I think part of the logic that got us here was the idea that because communications services were provided by a small handful of quasi government entities, the number of possible "houses" to search is very small. That is not the case today.

  Besides the obvious fourth amendment issues, this kind of centralized old world thinking is going to eventually relegate the U.S. to third world status when it comes to communications technology. U.S. broadband penetration and bandwidth when compared to the rest of the world is already embarrassing considering our head start.

  —thelastnamechosen Read thelastnamechosen's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel