Pursuant to your suggestion we "look at the current situation with open minds" what about when the FBI shows up and says "we need to install this E-mail monitor at your site"... is it not possible we as IT professionals could be drafted into service and would not that raise serious moral issues regardless of the legality? It's not so improbable that any one of us may be asked, or required, to be more then 'good neighbors'. Sure, a phone technician might have to assist in the installation of a 'wire-tap' but that's far short of the personal angst you might feel if obligated to assist in the monitoring of your co-workers and friends. Would you see yourself as a 'fireman' or something uglier? Would it make a difference as to the allegations and will you even be allowed to know? The pivot point of each of your examples is the 'legality' is established by case law evolving within the norms of society. That case law depends on our judges... and the judicial approval of the search warrant for Ward Weaver's home was issued based on some combination of known circumstantial factors, though any one of which would have been insufficient (and justifiably ridiculed), that fact demonstrates that yes... too much time elapsed as the warrant was not issued on a late breaking 'smoking gun'. But does this indicate negligence or circumstance? I'm sure the agents did everything ethically within their power to get that search warrant and I believe the close contacts with the victim's families demonstrates they personally agonized over the delays. So consider what aspects of the judicial climate inhibited the final decision to successfully present the evidence needed for that warrant. Avoiding those delays would not have saved the first two children (or more) but the delay certainly risked the third victim, the rape survivor, to both the horrific event and potential consequences evidenced by the bruising around her neck. But... does one highly publicized incident mean the system has failed or does the infrequency and solution of this horror demonstrate success? I too fall into the 'civil liberties supreme' camp because I don't think the Constitution allows the government to be in the morality crimes business. We quite literally can't afford the tax burden required to incarcerate so many for being 'wrong' instead of being dangerous to society. Isn't that a little dumb? -----Original Message----- From: Tao, Greg [mailto:greg.tao@private] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 11:09 PM To: 'crime@private' Subject: CRIME Follow-up to my idea for helping law enforcement respond more eff ectively to life-threatening disappearances and abductions I appreciate all the thoughtful feedback. The more I hear from folks, the more I realize this topic is within the scope of the mailing list because it relates to computer crime investigations too. First, let me say that it is refreshing to hear so many people concerned about the freedom we enjoy as Americans. Those of you who know me personally know that I too care deeply about our freedom, particularly about our First Freedom, the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment, which I consider to be the ultimate guarantor of freedom. My late uncle, who was with the 2nd Marine Division during WW2 often reminded me about the price of freedom, so I can't ever forget... I'd like to take a different approach now. Rather than solicit feedback about my proposal, which was admittedly just the ranting of a fellow who was as deeply upset as everybody else about the conclusion to the Oregon City case, I'd like to explore the question of balancing our civil rights vs. the public good. We'll go down an pointless rat hole if we debate the merits of my original idea which was never intended as a be-all/end-all solution. ...so let's look at the current situation with open minds to see how we can make this country a better and safer place. I'll start with the assertion that there are situations where our civil rights are temporarily superceded by a greater concern. Some examples: -- In the military, there is no "free speech" as we know it in the civilian world. You have UCMJ, and for good reason...to maintain the unified chain of command -- Firemen responding to a fire don't need a warrant to search a house for people...they just save lives cutting through walls if necessary -- While law-abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, convicted felons do not -- There is the cliché example that the right of free speech does not mean you can yell "fire" in a crowded theater -- Airport security personnel don't need a warrant to run everybody through metal detectors and other security checkpoints -- House-by-house searches are authorized under certain circumstances when a criminal at large poses a clear and present danger to the community. Admittedly, I have no clue what the criteria is for such searches, but you see them on the news from time to time I'd like to see if there is *some* reasonable and useful change we can make to our criminal justice system that can reduce the amount of denied or deferred justice resulting from things like: -- evidence thrown out on a technicality (e.g. cast iron skillet used by Ward Weaver to beat an ex-wife) -- evidence not admissible due to a technicality (e.g. the police weren't authorized to search Stoudamire's marijuana) -- law enforcement not able to search obvious places of interest due to the stringent requirements for getting a search warrant The problem we face is that in the case of predatory murderers who abduct and kill people, time is of the essence when a person goes missing. I've heard people describe the first 48 hours as critical. These predators most often know their victims and live or operate within some proximity of them. Furthermore, they often fit a certain criminal profile involving prior violent criminal behavior. I'm thinking that there must be *some* way to allow law enforcement to investigate these crimes more freely in a manner that doesn't trample on the intentions of our Bill of Rights. The status quo just feels like it protects criminals more than it does honest people. Another point to consider: As the Framers of our Constitution stated in the Declaration of Independence, government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, so law enforcement will ultimately be limited by the will of the people. However, the limits we place on law enforcement say a lot about ourselves, both good and bad. The accountability we hold those with power shows we seek fair treatment for all. Yet our willingness to allow criminal investigations to stall for fear of minor inconveniences or the possibility that searches might uncover some popular criminal activity such as recreational "soft" drug use shows a somewhat insensitive aspect of our culture, particularly when delay in criminal investigation can cost lives. I am reminded of Kitty Genovese in New York City. For those of you not familiar with the name, check out http://www.lihistory.com/8/hs818a.htm. No less than 38 of her neighbors witnessed her being stabbed to death over the course of 35 minutes. I wonder if we as a society are collectively doing the same thing as Kitty Genovese's neighbors by not opening up our communities to more liberal searches by law enforcement when human lives are at stake. There's got to be something we can do besides accept the status quo... Thanks, Greg Tao greg.tao@private Disclaimer: These are my personal views and opinions, not the views and opinions of my employer.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Aug 28 2002 - 13:10:26 PDT