> > The 3rd amendment argument is a losing argument. The purpose of that
> > amendment is to prevent repeating something that happened during the
> > Revolutionary War. It pertains to soldiers shacking up in civilian's
> > houses, not to a civilian law-enforcement organization hooking a
> computer
> > up to your ISP's network.
>
> I don't think so. The analogy is very clear. There isn't any extra
> ammendment or law that guarantees any extra rights to the Press. The
> 1st
> is good enough.
>
> Yes, the 3rd ammendment isn't really about the soldiers spying on you,
> it's about them eating up your resources. But a box at an ISP sniffing
> traffic IS eating up the ISP's resources. In the least it's eating up
> electricity and bandwith to report back and be controlled.
The 1st amendment explicitly grants freedom of press. Are you upset that
the Carnivore box is using _electricity_?? The third amendment was about
having some Infantryman sleeping in your bed, eating your food, and
messing around with your daughter/wife/livestock. The Carnivore box is no
more intrusive or expensive to the ISP than a wiretap is to a telco.
> > I don't know the specific laws, but this is something the spooks have
> > always done anyway. Like Donald Kerr said (if FBI spooks like him and
> me
> > can be trusted), the FBI routinely orders ISPs to do this surveillance
> > themselves anyway, when the ISP has the resources to do it.
>
> Yes, but that doesn't make it legal. Hey, they've done black bag jobs
> too, and got caught. See Watergate.
These are abuses that got exposed. But the threat of abuse is a poor
reason to leave the FBI helpless in the face of modern threats to the USA.
This is akin to the argument that the death penalty should be banned
because of the failings in the judicial system. Sure, every mote of power
you give to a public servant is subject to misuse, but a cop needs his gun
and a surveyor needs his tripod. The FBI needs to be able to do its thing
so buildings don't start blowing up.
I know it's laughable when an FBI spokesman says "Hey just trust us,
guys!" But even if we don't trust the FBI, we have to trust the watchdog
groups and government that guarantees balances. Remember, the FBI's
primary purpose is to protect the masses - not to read your letters to
grandma.
> Not at all. A kid fucker leaves solid physical evidence. A kid that's
> been fucked.
--snip other examples--
You've convinced me on this point. If the FBI suspects someone of doing
illegal shit with his computer, why don't they just get a warrant and
search the computer?
> > If the FBI has court-approved
> > probable couse, which means they've already turned up good evidence,
> then
> > it's fine with me - especially in the case of a suspected terrorist -
> if
> > they monitor said suspected terrorist's emails.
>
> Yeah, like there were never any illegal wire taps before.
See above, death penalty, etc.
> > Hey - maybe the whole carnivore thing is just a red herring to
> distract us
> > while some real heinous snooping is going on at the ISP level.
>
> By what? The NSA?
Hey, why not?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail � Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
