Dude, you are an impressive philosopher! I like you more and more. Maybe this has been a worthwhile debate after all. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: owner-crime@/var/spool/majordomo/lists/crime [mailto:owner-crime@/var/spool/majordomo/lists/crime]On Behalf Of Kuo, Jimmy Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 5:01 PM To: 'crime@private ' Subject: 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 - 11:32:28 PDT