Thread: Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space
View Single Post
  #96  
Old May 18th 06, 04:00 AM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.conspiracy,sci.space.history
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
  
Posts: n/a
Default Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space
(Henry Spencer) wrote:

:In article ,
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
::...Seems to me that the records of who you called don't belong to you.
::Uh, so? That doesn't mean they are public information. The people who do
:wn them can still have a legal obligation to keep them confidential...
:
:They can, but can you point to a piece of law that says that they do?
:
:Others have already identified specific laws requiring warrants for the
:release of records of calls. It's obscure but established law.

You're confusing things. The law requires a warrant for the
government to USE a 'pen trap'. However, I don't see how this
prohibits the purchase of commercially available data.

::...marketers can get hold of a lot more intimate things.
::Sometimes, and sometimes not. That doesn't mean they -- or random
::government agencies -- are entitled to get *this* particular type of
::information.
:
:Well, yes, it largely does. If the information is publicly available...
:
:This information isn't publicly available. There's a difference between
:something that might perhaps be available to a clever and unscrupulous
:marketer, and something that's available to the *public*. It's not public
:information unless it's available (legally) to anyone (perhaps after
ayment of a suitable fee or after undertaking significant effort).

But it's still commercially available. Nobody has said the government
collected this data.

If I private citizen illegally enters and find evidence of a crime,
the government is allowed to act and the evidence, even though
collected in a way that would be illegal for the government to use, is
legally admissible.

Same thing here. The government didn't request the data be collected.
They merely asked for existing data.

::...It's quite legal for your
::employer to monitor conversations on your office phone... but a cop who
::does it without a warrant is in big trouble if he's found out. (And if he
::asks your employer to, and the employer does, *both* are in big trouble --
::acting at his request makes the employer an "agent of the government" and
::subject to the same rules.)
:
:The only real reason this is different is because your employer owns
:your office phone.
:
:Nope. Note the second part of what I said -- even though he owns the
hones, there are some legal limits on what he can do with that power.

Like what?

:But we're not talking about phone eavesdropping, so that hardly seems
:an appropriate explanation for treating WHO you call (rather than what
:you say, which would be phone eavesdropping) any differently than
:which web sites you visit.
:
:You missed my point (although I admittedly worded it poorly): the reason
:why the two are different is that there is well-established law for the
hone system -- including limits on release of call records -- while the
:legal situation for the net remains vague.

No, there is no limit on RELEASE of call records (that I saw). There
is a prohibition with regard to the government asking for such
information to be specifically collected on individuals without a
warrant. But that's not what's purportedly happened.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn