🚀 go-pugleaf

cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison) writes:
> Old LE tools should map into the new space (with new connectivity,
> as if space warps had been invented).  If you disagree, please cite
> some such tools and show how they are defeated.

Suppose I turn it around.  Cite me an old LE tool that maps, with new
connectivity, into the new space.

Uri Blumenthal cited a variety of techniques.  However, they fall into two
categories: 1) unaffected by electronic communication (eg blooded knives), and
2) electronic but still applicable (eg planted microphones).

David Burns similarly cited some tools in the second category.

Jerry Leichter discussed differences in LE between 150 years ago and today,
claiming in particular that criminal investigation is basically a twentieth
century phenomenon with little corollary in the pre-electronic world.  He also
points out that crimes themselves have changed: to extend his statements a bit,
the existence of electronic communication has led to crimes which could not be
committed, possibly not even contemplated, without electronic communication.

The latter views are much closer to my own.  It's not just the physical world
which has changed.  Attitudes, entire philosophies, change in ways which are
far more difficult to track than are physical changes.  Old attitudes and
philosophies are far more difficult to understand than are old physical
conditions.

Carl also says

    there was a time when criminals were free to have private
    conversations and know that the conversation[s were] private

That is undeniably true in the physical sense.  But did anyone actually think
in such terms?  More importantly, are we capable of expunging this concept, and
similar ones, from our vocabulary so that we can "go back to doing what we did
before"?  Is it even meaningful to talk about "going back" unless we roll back
our attitudes and philosophies?

Edward Reid  (8*}>
  eel:   ed@titipu.resun.com  or  nosc.mil!titipu.resun.com!ed
  snail: PO Box 378/Greensboro FL 32330