Re: I don't know who's leaking this stuff...

David Dean wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>  Chris Wright <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> They are not assuming they are criminals.
> 
>    Yes they are. Police should not investigate lawful activity.

So the cops at the Yankees game must watch the game and the game only 
until someone phones them to tell them there is a crime in progress.

Next time I'm at a game and policeman looks at me, I can sue his arse 
off for 'investigating me'.

Or was he simply using his powers of observation to look for crimes in 
progress.
Unfortunately, while he is looking for the pick-pocket, or the drug 
purchase, or the attempted mugging, or whatever, he is going to look at 
an awful lot of innocent people in his view.

Who cares if the policeman looks at me? Hell, no one does.

So what difference is it if someone or more importantly some 'thing' 
happens to scan a chance conversation I have?

> 
>> Do you recommend that all policemen wear blinkers and ear defenders to 
>> stop them looking at innocent people?
> 
>    If people are dumb enough to commit crimes in public, they have no 
> reasonable expectation of privacy. When I call my wife, any reasonable 
> person would expect that conversation to be private.

Your call is in private, its between you and your wife.  Unless that is 
you are planning to stick a few lbs of TNT under Buckingham Palace in 
which case an automated piece of kit might detect it and flag it for 
further scrutiny.

Its got nothing to do with privacy.

Heck if I can trust my wifes Gynecologist not to go down the golf club 
afterwards and tell everyone she has acute angina(*), you would think I 
could trust an agency to be discreet with my phone logs.

I must admit that my faith in 'the' agency not to screw up isn't exactly 
at a high level of confidence.

Only those with something to hide have something to fear.

> 
>> Just because they are recording your phone conversation does not make 
>> you a criminal, nor does it imply that you are one.
> 
>    It is an unlawful search unless they have probable cause.
> 

How about the probability that they are going to catch someone and 
prevent them from blowing you up.
The chances of you getting caught up by a few planes crashing down again 
is pretty remote, but the chances of a nuke or dirty bomb wiping out 
100's of 1000's is a damn site higher all the time we don't do 
everything we can to try and halt them.
The next time it won't be a few 1000', it'll be worse than the boxing 
day Tsunami except it'll be in the US and/or Europe.

The threat wasn't so real back then 'the law' was written.
If it is that much of a sticking point, then the law sucks and needs to 
change.

(*) old joke