🚀 go-pugleaf

Well, if I ever wondered what it would be like to express an unpopular
view, I sure know now!

I can't possible respond to everything, but did want to mention that 
the dialog is good.

I stand corrected on "unauthorized taps."  At the time I wrote it, I
was thinking more of the current situation than the past.  Practices
in the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have changed 
considerably since the days of COINTELPRO and Watergate, but they
seldom get any credit for their reforms or any of the things they
do well.  

Someone mentioned that the government is exempt from the proposed Digital
Telephony legislation.  The reason is that law enforcement already
has access to the premises, so doing a tap is no problem.

Two examples of cases where tapping saved lives:  In one case, the FBI
prevented a terrorist group from shooting down a commercial airliner
with a stolen military weapons system.  In another, they prevented
a porno-ring from kidnaping a 12-year old.  The ring planned to murder
him while making (and then selling) a film about it.  In that case, they 
intercepted voice, fax, and conversations over a BBS.  

Someone said we aren't obliged to make law enforcement easier. 
Our obligation is to follow the laws, however, whatever they are.  If
we don't, we risk the consequences.  Obligation is not a moral
issue, but a legal one, at least as far as penalties go. 

I don't think anyone is even contemplating saving all communications.
The volume would be horrendous.  The Digital Telephony legislation,
as well as existing law, only calls for real-time access.

Dorothy Denning