On Wed, 23 May 2001, Patrick Kirk wrote:
> "...it must be held that third-party electronic monitoring, subject
> only to the self-restraint of law enforcement officials, has no place
> in our society..." Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> What does this mean? Surely without surveillance, there can be no society?
It's an excerpt from Supreme Court Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion in
US v. White (1971). A government informant was equipped by the police with
a radio transmitter, and his incriminating conversations with White were
recorded and entered as evidence. He was found guilty.
On appeal the verdict was overturned, citing the prohibition of
warrantless electronic eavesdropping established in Katz v. US.
The Supreme Court reversed this decision, finding that the use of
electronic monitoring was no different than taking written notes.
Harlan objected,
"The impact of the practice of third-party bugging, must, I think,
be considered such as to undermine that confidence and sense of
security in dealing with one another that is characteristic of
individual relationships between citizens in a free society.
.... the issue here is whether to interpose a search warrant
procedure between law enforcement agencies engaging in electronic
evesdropping and the public generally.
Interposition of a warrant requirement is designed not to shield
"wrongdoers," but to secure a measure of privacy and a sense of
personal security throughout our society."
That is, electronic monitoring is so offensive to liberty that its use,
even by proxy, must be supervised by a warrant.
Big Brother is listening.
--
"...it must be held that third-party electronic monitoring, subject
only to the self-restraint of law enforcement officials, has no place
in our society..." Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
