Wiretapping v warrants

[Bruce Marshall <brucem@wichita.fn.net>]

On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:

> Here's a question, however:  What, exactly, stands between the way it is 
> supposedly done, today, and wiretapping with none of these "protections."

    First and foremost Congress, then the Judicial system and finally the 
people themselves.  As far as I know, the Communications Assistance for 
Law Enforcement Act still hasn't been enforced since Congress won't give 
them funding until better statistics are provided by the FBI as to why 
they need the ability to place wiretaps so extensively.  I'm sure the 
reasonability of privacy would come into play with the court system along 
with who knows what other claims.  

> And another question I've never seen a satisfactory answer for:  Why is 
> there not an automatic policy to inform the person tapped, at least after 
> the tap is removed, analogous to the level of information the victim of a 
> search warrant normally gets?

    Since I'm not exactly sure whether the targets of a wiretap are ever 
informed that their conversations were monitored if they aren't later 
prosecuted using the info gained through the wiretap, I couldn't really 
comment on why if that is the case.  

    Personally, I think a better example could be used.  When a person is 
placed under visual surveilance they also are uninformed that their 
actions are being scrutinized.  Their conversations can be picked up 
using high powered microphones and they can be plainly seen with 
binoculars or even night vision goggles.  I would assume that they 
probably aren't informed after the fact either unless the surveilance is 
used against them in court.

    Regardless, I think that if people aren't informed that they were the 
subject of an investigation after they are cleared, they should be.

Bruce Marshall