eli@cvl.UUCP (Eli Liang) (08/12/85)
> In article <2493@pegasus.UUCP> mzal@pegasus.UUCP (Mike Zaleski) writes: > >Now, how is looking for "interesting speeds" different from the > >government's (past/present?) policy of scanning international calls > >for "interesting words"? > > You know when you get your drivers lic. that the police have radar > guns and they use them. Thus when you see a police car beside the road > you know you are being spied on. However, with wiretaps you have no > way of knowing when you are being spied on. > > Bjorn Benson The thing thats been interesting for me is that one could say that using a telephone is a privilege and not a right (you don't own the telephone lines that your call goes over) and then use that as justification for wiretapping. Sure, they don't do that now, but whose stopping them if they start using excuses like this? -eli -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eli Liang --- University of Maryland Computer Vision Lab, (301) 454-4526 ARPA: liang@cvl, liang@lemuria, eli@mit-mc, eli@mit-prep CSNET: liang@cvl UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!cvl!liang
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (08/16/85)
In article <713@cvl.UUCP> eli@cvl.UUCP (Eli Liang) writes: >The thing thats been interesting for me is that one could say that using >a telephone is a privilege and not a right (you don't own the telephone lines >that your call goes over) and then use that as justification for wiretapping. >Sure, they don't do that now, but whose stopping them if they start using >excuses like this? As I understand it (those dread words which always seem to precede an error), it is a privilege and not a right, and what keeps them from wiretapping at will is a federal law which says they can't. Repeal the law and they can. I suppose that the Supreme Court might well decide that telephone conversations are covered by the implied right to privacy, but, then again, perhaps not. -- Peter Reiher reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher