🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct27.143737.1574@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>, denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
> 
> The posting about the proposal I made at the NCSC for key registration
> is essentially correct.  Let me add to it the following:
> 

(deleted)

> 4.  Someone suggested that law enforcement routinely taps without
> court order.  This is an ungrounded claim for which I have never
> seen any evidence.  Regardless, their ability to do this is 
> disappearing with the new digital based technologies.  They need the
> help of the service providers, who in turn ask for court orders.
> Court orders are not all that easy to get as law enforcers have to
> document why other approaches have failed etc.
> 
> 
> Dorothy Denning
> denning@cs.georgetown.edu (posting from guvax)
> 
> 

With the amount of abuse of legal methods that the poolice and prosecutors have
engaged in in recent years combined with the inability of the public to have
any accurate knowledge of what efforts or cooperation are needed to tap
phones (from what I have read here and elsewhere, 
there are plenty of ways of monitoring a phone
without involving the phone company), how can the public validate Dr. 
Denning's claim that the police do not routinely tap (or monitor) communications?

There have been numerous cases reported in the papers and elsewhere of the police
fabricating evidence, coercing false testimony and confessions and other 
activities.  Many cases of prosecutor misconduct have also been reported.

Without a thorough examination of exactly what is occuring in regards to police
tapping and monitoring of communications I think it would be foolish to issue a
blanket statement that police misconduct does not occur in telecommunications
monitoring.

James Zuchelli
-----------------
The above is my personal opinion and does not represent the opinion of Claris
Corporation or my Employer