You’re absolutely right, it’s infuriating as heck. Especially when people say “Well, I don’t mind….” Gee, do you think nobody else might possibly (1) be affected, (2) object and (3) count for anything?

The interesting thing is, people tend to exercise selective attention, often along political lines. Many of the same folks who are suspicious of tax agents’ or regulators’ powers – particularly to search and seize business records and assets – have no problem with giving unlimited discretion to cops on the street.

(And unfortunately, many of our civil liberties allies turn around and blindly trust government officials on “mere” business matters. It’s a sad commentary on our times that you can tell who’s a liberal and who’s a conservative by looking to see which constitutional amendment they consider important – the First or the Second. Or which part of the Fifth.)

Cheers,

Jeff Deutsch

As for national security wiretaps, that’s an interesting issue. Functionally, given Katz, when phone calls cross international boundaries, the wiretap is the functional equivalent of a border search, which can be pretty intrusive. The real protection for the national security wiretaps is the sheer volume of calls. Yeah, the bozos are going to listen in on phone sex and what have you (something for which jail time ought to happen), but there is enough anonymity to give us protection.

There’s a link to email him for copies of the ones that aren’t directly available.

And really, isn’t that what justice is all about?

I guess, in an ideal world, sure, we’d want cops to be able to do the right thing and “solve the crime”. But this isn’t an ideal world.