[Vision2020] Eavesdropping

Wed Mar 1 23:44:00 PST 2006

I guess I'd start with the expectation of privacy, and I realize that the 
court could go the other way on this.  But since I expect my cell phone 
conversations to be private, I'd want the state to have a warrant before 
eavesdropping on me.

I don't know what CONUS means, but I think it's where I get hemarrhoids.

Sunil

Boy, I'm well over 3 posts today.

>From: "Phil Nisbet" <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com>
>To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com, pkraut at moscow.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Eavesdropping
>Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:31:26 -0800
>
>Sunil
>
>What about the case of wireless transmission?  My understanding was that in 
>the case of portable phones and radio phones the rules with regards to 
>warrants were not the same as with land lines.  Would the same rule be true 
>if satellite or cell phones were involved?
>
>Then the other question would be if a call originates from out side of 
>CONUS, do those rules apply?
>
>Phil
>
>PS, To Pat, its a pretty rare case that would justify warrantless search.  
>Its a way slippery slope to domestic spying once it becomes standard 
>procedures and if it gets allowed under one party, what happens when the 
>other gets into power?
>
>
>>From: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>>To: pkraut at moscow.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Eavesdropping
>>Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:18:23 -0800
>>
>>Pat,
>>
>>Do you welcome the police to come and search through your home without a 
>>warrant?  If they don't find anything, no harm, right?
>>
>>I know they won't find anything illegal in my house, but for my part, if 
>>they want to search it, they need a warrant.  That's what required by 
>>what's left of the Fourth Amendment, and I will hold them to it.
>>
>>You've written in the past that you have taught the Constitution.  What 
>>does the Bill of Rights mean to you?  Surely it wasn't written with the 
>>'What are you trying to hide?' attitude of your post below.
>>
>>Sunil
>>
>>
>>>From: "Pat Kraut" <pkraut at moscow.com>
>>>To: "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Eavesdropping
>>>Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 22:19:17 -0800
>>>
>>>If you were talking about planting bombs and visiting in the middle east
>>>then yes your calls could be should be heard. If you called your parents 
>>>in
>>>Florida and didn't talk about bombs then they would find that your not 
>>>who
>>>they are looking for...it isn't that hard.
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Tom Hansen" <idahotom at hotmail.com>
>>>To: <pkraut at moscow.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>Cc: <idahotom at hotmail.com>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 11:51 AM
>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Eavesdropping
>>>
>>>
>>>Ms. Kraut -
>>>
>>>I believe that Mr. Reynolds is suggesting that Mr. Nisbet relay his claim 
>>>of
>>>beinig a "victim" of warrantless wiretaps to the media.  A claim, such as
>>>Mr. Nisbet's (that he was unlawfully wiretapped by the Department of 
>>>Justice
>>>during the Clinton administration), would certainly draw some well 
>>>deserved
>>>attention.
>>>
>>>If my residence were unlawfully wiretapped by the Department of Justice I
>>>most certainly would not wait a considerable length of time only to 
>>>discuss
>>>it on V2020.
>>>
>>>Ms. Kraut goes on to ask:
>>>
>>>"If a person can buy a throw away cell phone in a store (maybe a[t] Wally
>>>World!) use if for the two hours there is time for talk about bombs and 
>>>then
>>>the number is no longer good how do you think they should get a warrant?"
>>>
>>>You know something, Ms. Kraut:  Over the past couple years when I flew 
>>>down
>>>to visit my parents in Los Angeles, and before I purchased a cell phone, 
>>>I
>>>made use of those throw-away cell phones.  They are inexpense and handy.
>>>
>>>Is it your belief that "they" should have detained me simply because I 
>>>had a
>>>throw-away cell phone?  Should "they" detain everybody that uses those
>>>throw-away cell phones?
>>>
>>>You see, Ms. Kraut, there is a reason why our founding fathers were kind
>>>enough to bless our private lives with the US Constitution's fourth
>>>amendment.
>>>
>>>But then, George Bush is not only above the law, HE IS THE LAW and, as
>>>everybody knows, . . .
>>>
>>>"The law is for protection of the people."
>>>http://www.tomandrodna.com/Sounds/Protection.mp3
>>>
>>>"Ah, so thank your lucky stars you got protection
>>>Walk the line and never mind the cost.
>>>Don't wonder who them lawmen was protectin',
>>>When they nailed the saviour to the cross."
>>>
>>>Seeya round town, Moscow.
>>>
>>>Tom Hansen
>>>Moscow, Idaho
>>>
>>>
>>>_____________________________________________________
>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>>
>>_____________________________________________________
>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the 
>>communities of the Palouse since 1994.                 http://www.fsr.net  
>>                               mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>