🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov3.090942.1626@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
} 
}> Now, I'm really curious, why Ms. Denning suddently becomes concerned 
}> with what she calls "a major crisis in law enforcement".  Since when 
}> did  inability of law enforcement  to eavesdrop on anybody's private 
}> communications at their whim, become a "crisis"?
}
}The word "crisis" is probably too strong.  But let me elaborate on the 
}effect of COURT-AUTHORIZED taps.  According to the FBI, they have been
}essential in preventing serious criminal activity including organized 
}crime, drug trafficking, extortion, terrorism, kidnaping, and murder.  

There's a conflict of interest here which reduces the credibility of the FBI's
claims.  What about estimates by neutral third parties?  Besides, drug
prohibition must be repealed, which would reduce violent crime a hell of a
lot more than regulating encryption.

}During the period 1985-1991, court-ordered electronic surveillance 
}conducted by the FBI alone led to 7,324 convictions, almost $300 
}million in fines being levied, over $750 million in recoveries, 
}restitutions, and court-ordered forfeitures, and close to $2 billion in 

Note the forfeitures.  Civil asset seizure and forfeiture is a procedure
whereby the property of innocents can now be taken away from them on no more
basis that "probable cause," which recent Supreme Court rulings have watered
down.  Not only is this permitted, but is practiced by some police departments
as a form of "revenue enhancement" or direct taxation, often in collusion with
the FBI.  In case anyone doesn't recall, both the presumption of innocence and
the 4th amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures is
violated by this.  Only the figure for recoveries and restitutions should be
credited.

}Wiretapping yields evidence that is considerably more reliable than 
}that obtained from other methods such as informants, and is less
}dangerous for law enforcers than breaking and entering to install
}bugs in homes or offices.  I recently had the good fortune to hear
}Ed Tufte give a talk (author of "The Visual Display of Quantitative
}Information").  He had a chart that showed why the jury acquitted John
}Gotty at one of his trials.  The chart was a list of all the 
}informants and the crimes they had committed.  How could the jury 
}believe the evidence with that chart?  Electronic surveillance was
}essential in the ultimate conviction of Gotty and other OC leaders.  

Aside from the misspelling of Gotti, what is the standard of reliability
here?  It's utility for convictions?

}Nevertheless, wiretapping is not used much because the law requires 
}that law enforcers show that other methods have been
}tried and have failed (or would be likely to fail) and because it is
}expensive.  The average cost of a wiretap in 1991 was $45K.  Most
}of this goes to labor.  Those of you who think that law enforcers
}are likely to start tapping everyone with or without a warrant need
}to do a reality check on cost and government budgets.  Assuming there
}are about 100 million lines, the total cost to listen in on them
}all would be $4.5 trillion!

Many uses of wiretaps may be unrecorded, as they are done without warrants
in order to pursue a case.  The evidence is inadmissable, but such practices
can lead to the discovery of other evidence that may be admissable.

Besides, the danger is not that everyone's liberties will be violated at
once, but that everyone will be at risk of being singled out for invasion of
privacy.

Furthermore, if the goverment has its way, its budgets will be much higher
than at present, and have in fact been increasing - it's often listed as a
success of the War on Drugs that the budgets of the agencies fighting it
have been expanded.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire