[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [off-topic] roving wiretaps
At 01:52 AM 8/2/96 -0700, [email protected] (David Wagner) wrote:
>> would dramatically change surveillance authority to include wiretaps of
>> INDIVIDUALS instead of LOCATIONS.
>I don't get it. Help me out here-- how can this possibly be constitutional?
[CENSORED MATERIAL DELETED]
You've been hanging out with those subversive Canadians again,
haven't you? It's covered by the Terrorism Exception to the 4th Amendment.*
>P.S. Do police really need a search warrant to wiretap cellular phones?
Do you mean legally? :-)
Some combination of laws and court decisions has established that
cordless phones don't provide an expectation of privacy,
but cellular phones do, so eavesdropping on cellular phones
requires wiretapping authorization (whether a warrant, FISA permission,
or whatever other procedures constitute Due Process.)
-----------------------------------
* The Drug Exception to the 4th Amendment says ", except for drugs, of course."
The Terrorism Exception says "Be afraid. Be very afraid."
-----------------------------------
# Thanks; Bill
# Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 [email protected]
# <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!