About personal privacy, as often, I have some comments about what I just wrote.
Well, that statement might seem a bit extreme. By the same token,
people do not
know how much of what they think is private is not, and it should be carefully
disclosed to them.
Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> Well, this has some implications. It would seem unconstitutional.
> Here is the issue, there is never a reason for anyone to listen to
> anyone else's
> conversation unless they are directly involved in the conversation or it
> is a
> public broadcast.
> Law enforcement should be able to get access to telephone conversations
> and data
> transfer if they have a warrant, but not otherwise. To observe any
> conversation besides one's own and those that one has a privilege to
> given by the people in a conversation, is a violation of rights. Any
> time there
> becomes government recording, there is to be notification.
> When talking to service representatives of the phone company, you are
> that the conversation is being recorded and then it is clear. Any other
> recording is a rights violation.
Maybe it is more so than any copying other than the original copy is
unconstitutional. I mean, if it is a machine, not a human, and left
the common expectation of being an answering machine, and someone leaves a
message, that's totally constitutional.
> There is not reason for the equipment actually used to perform wiretaps
> to not
> be available to law enforcement, but there should be checks and balances
> on its
> use just like any other use of it.
All this machinery runs on equipment by people.
> These checks and balances should be available to be publicly monitored.
> this would mean is that the prima facie elements of a case would have to
> established before any wiretapping. Then, a warrant could be aquired,
> conventionally, through a judge, then it would be constitutional to
> someone. To be actually constitutional, it might be necessary for there
> to be
> Ross Finlayson
I think good government is a good thing. I think it is good to advocate
I like reading about Congress and the laws, they define how a
competitive society works.
Read my other messages for more of my opinions.
> Gina Miller wrote:
> > Law enforcement agencies are moving to trucked commnication systems and
> > radio scanners will incorporate trunk tracking as well. The H.R. 514,
> > "Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act of 1999" will make it illegal for
> > manufactureres to sell such equipment, or to sell any devices that "convert
> > protected paging service transmissions to alphanumeric text." This bill is
> > what the Feds are offering to enhance our privacy in lieu of strong
> > encryption systems that they would have difficulty cracking. In other words:
> > they can listen to us, but we can't listen to them. The bill is currently
> > winding its way through Congress and will almost certainly become a law
> > unless people make a fuss. You can read the bill at:
> > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.514
> > If you're incensed enough to write your representative but forgotten who
> > they are go to:
> > http://www.congress.nw.dc.us/c-span/elecmail.html
> > An anti H.R. site
> > http://www.dimensional.com/~efricha/HR514/
> > Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
> > Nanotechnology Industries
> > Web Page
> > http://www.nanoindustries.com
> > E-mail
> > email@example.com
> > Alternate E-mail
> > firstname.lastname@example.org
> > "The science of nanotechnology, solutions for the future."
> > _______________________________________________________________
> > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
> Ross Andrew Finlayson
> "C is the speed of light."
Huh. It's a good thing that we have a vigilant populace. That way, can
our open government. Also, we can ensure, through our vote, and campaign
contributions, public and popular interest in terms of our representatives in
-- Ross Andrew Finlayson 202/387-8208 http://www.tomco.net/~raf/ "C is the speed of light."