RE: CRIME Kudos to Acting Police Chief Andrew Kirkland

From: Kuo, Jimmy (Jimmy_Kuo@private)
Date: Fri Nov 23 2001 - 17:01:23 PST

  • Next message: webb1973: "RE: CRIME Kudos to Acting Police Chief Andrew Kirkland"

    The biggest problem in this discussion is one borne out of a comment by a
    Stanford Law professor a couple nights ago on Nightline.
    
    "Has anyone's rights been abridged?"
    
    "Since noone has been prosecuted by the tribunals, noone has been ..., no."
    But the problem at this point is the possibility.  And this has now been
    highlighted by Spain's refusal to extradite unless we give clear assurances
    of not using the new laws.
    
    But at the same time, the possibility is itself a weapon.
    
    The biggest problem for us is that we don't know.  It's very much like all
    those Sunday blue laws.  The authorities theoretically have them in their
    arsenal.  We have no idea if they intend to use it.  We *trust* that they
    would use it wisely.
    
    And then it comes down to each of our experiences as to the level of that
    trust.
    
    Jimmy
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: webb1973
    To: Kuo, Jimmy; crime@private
    Sent: 11/23/01 4:04 PM
    Subject: RE: CRIME Kudos to Acting Police Chief Andrew Kirkland
    
    Again, good point, Mr. Kuo. Having had some limited exposure to this, I
    suspect that the tribunals would be conducted under international law,
    and
    would be handled procedurally similar to the war crimes tribunals that
    are
    now being conducted at the Hague regarding the Kosovo conflict. Without
    conducting it's terrorism tribunal in a similar manner employing similar
    guidelines, and probably at the Hague also, the US would lose the
    support of
    other nations. Politically, at least, the US would find itself unable to
    establish legitimacy under international law if it did otherwise. In
    such
    tribunals, international law does not require the evidentiary
    restrictions
    that our domestic courts employ in criminal matters. It is more akin to
    rules of evidence used in our domestic administrative courts. How this
    type
    of wire interception would be handled is anybody's guess because the law
    is
    still evolving, but prosecutors would have to lay a proper foundation to
    show how the evidence was compiled, etc.
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-crime@/var/spool/majordomo/lists/crime
    [mailto:owner-crime@/var/spool/majordomo/lists/crime]On Behalf Of Kuo,
    Jimmy
    Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 10:33 PM
    To: 'crime@private '
    Subject: RE: CRIME Kudos to Acting Police Chief Andrew Kirkland
    
    
    >ObCRIME Mailing list: It was recently reported
    >http://www.msnbc.com/news/660096.asp?cp1=1
    >that the FBI has added a new feature ("Magic Lantern") to Carnivore
    >that will seek to obtain crypto keys from suspects' computers using
    >an e-mail virus. An interesting question I have not seen answered
    >is whether the FBI or other government agencies will need a warrent
    >to deploy such tools, or to use the fruits there of. Anyone in law
    >enforcement have a clue of whether you need a warrent to hack into
    >a suspect's computer?
    
    First, it's not a virus.  It's a trojan.
    
    Second, I believe Ashcroft has answered that question already.  The
    answer
    is, no warrant is needed if there is no intention to use the information
    gathered for a prosecution.
    
    OTOH, (my guess), there's no telling what would be usable in the
    tribunals.
    
    Jimmy
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun May 26 2002 - 11:32:21 PDT