FBI May Use Keystroke-Recording Device Without Wiretap Order

Law.com ^ | January 3, 2002 | Mary P. Gallagher

[verboten]

I think one problem we have is that the use of wiretaps comes about mostly because of mala prohibta crimes. These are crimes by statue, not violations of natural law. This includes the crimes that the mob and drug orgranizations violate. These are all crimes of statute; drugs, prostitution, gambling.

Since they are illegal, the organizations that provide the services have to use their own violence (as opposed to the violence of the state) to enforce their rules. The very reason for their use of violence is that the state refuses to offer its protection to these enterprises. So when we point out that wiretaps are needed to stop criminal conspiracies I would add that if the activities they engage in were not illegal the crime itself would not exists. And the violence that is used to protect their business would be obsorbed by the state which if it is a just state tends to require less violence in protection.

So the state is in many ways responsible for the need of wiretaps in the first place. That they would create the problem which they intend to solve by playing loose with the Constitution should trouble us all.

[verboten]

Also, there is a difference in a search and surveilance. A search ends. This was surveilance. There was no end to the search. This is tyrannical in nature. There should be a reasonable period of time during which you can search. If the cops got a search warrant for your home would you think it reasonable for them to come each day for the next decade and rummage through your possessions? I think not.

[DoughtyOne]

No problem. You didn't singe 'em. I wasn't sure if you actually understood that my diplomatic response sought to achieve the same results your response did. Later.

[tbeatty]

According to this judge's logic, before the computer was invented, an agency with a warrant for a particular document in a safe depsosit box would be able to secretly surveil a suspect, and without his knowledge confiscate and read every item of written correspondence (from mail to a dry cleaning ticket) in order to find out the combination to the box.

And they did, do and will in the future. This is how surveillance is done and has been done. They had a warrant to obtain the password through surveillance of his keyboard and this is all they did. It is certainly within the spirit of the 4th ammendment that law enforcement be able to search, with the consent of the courts, specific places and looking for specific things.

THink of stolen property searches. They get a warrant to search your house for a stolen TV. They search your whole house, every closet, every bedroom and look at everything. The warrant doesn't limit them to simply what's visible when you look through the window. It is an authorization to SEARCH. That implies they are going to go through everyhting necessary to complete the search.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the futher clarification.

[tbeatty]

And the court determines whether the warrant they issued was reasonable. Guess what, it was.

[DoughtyOne]

Ah, futher = further

[verboten]

In your example though you must remember if they are looking for a TV they can not open drawers. As a TV is a large object and would not be small enough to fit in a drawer. The 4th Amendment and the legal tradition it originates from is intended to limit searches. The reason being the state will abuse its powers. This modern definition of reasonable is so exspansive as to be ridiculous.

[verboten]

The court found that cops can do whatever they want to get that arrest. What a shock. The story of our government has been of ever expanding powers. Guess who allows this, the courts. They have slowly destroyed the legal system we inherited which so well protected us and redefined it because they work on the ends justify the means principle. And because they enjoy wielding power as much as any other government type.

[tbeatty]

In your example though you must remember if they are looking for a TV they can not open drawers. As a TV is a large object and would not be small enough to fit in a drawer. The 4th Amendment and the legal tradition it originates from is intended to limit searches. The reason being the state will abuse its powers. This modern definition of reasonable is so exspansive as to be ridiculous.

And in this case, they were limited to searching for a password being typed on a specific keyboard. I fail to see how this is expansive. The execution of this particular type of warrant was necessary to preserve evidnece.

Look, they suspected this guy had kept evidence of a crime on this computer. They had a search warrant to search his harddrive. He refused to supply them with a password for a file they had a right to search. He certainly has the right not to provide it. So they obtained a warrant to search his keyboard. He typed in his password and they got it and were able to view the file that they had a warrant to look at anyway. THis is NOT an expansion of police powers.

It's just like having a search warrant for your house but finding the door locked, they ask you for a key. You refuse. Instead of knocking the door down, they wait for you to open (like they know you will) and show up at that moment. There is nothing expansionary in this.

[Sandy]

The court order in this case authorized covert breaking and entering "as many times as may be necessary" over a 30 day period. This was followed (30 days later) by a second order allowing the covert breaking and entering to continue for an additional 30 days--60 days total. This is in no way comparable to a standard search warrant, and the fact that Congress just recently passed a law specifically allowing this type of covert search is evidence that such searches were not legal if conducted anytime before the law was passed.