Re: [off-topic] roving wiretaps

[tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)]

At 8:52 AM 8/2/96, David Wagner wrote:

>I don't get it.  Help me out here-- how can this possibly be constitutional?
>
>I'm reading the Fourth Amendment to our honored Constitution of the United
>States, which proclaims
>
>        [...]
>        no warrants shall issue,
>        but upon probable cause,
>        supported by oath or affirmation,
>        and *particularly describing the place to be searched*,
>        and the persons or things to be seized.
>
>Are we just to strike out that emphasized phrase?  What's going on here?
>Someone tell me I'm not just having a bad nightmare.


The same way the Second Amendment has been turned into a shadow of itself
by creative lawyering.

("The Founders did not mean to include AR-15s and .45 Automatics as "guns,"
as these did not even exist in 1791. Likewise, cellular phones did not
exist in 1791, so the Fourth Amendment could not possibly apply to them.
Have a nice day.")

--Tim May

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."