On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 14:55, Todd Ellner wrote:
> >The law is what they can get away with. Since monitoring of a
> wireless
> >network is passive, how can you prove that they listened in? (Since
> >courts can now accept spectral evidence in cases of "national
> security"
> >(especially when monitoring foreign nationals), you would never see
> what
> >they held against you.)
>
> We must note, also, that the definitions of "terrorism" and "national
> security"
> as used by the Justice Department now include small scale drug
> trafficking,
> simple fraud, and money laundering.
>
"Terrorism" and "National Security" are both slippery terms without exact definition.
"Terrorist" seems to be "anyone doing anything I don't like".
"National Security" seems to be "anything that keeps me in power".
What is the technical term for "rule by excuse"?
Regexarchy?
--
alan at clueserver.org - alan at ctrl-alt-del.com
"...new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great
engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of
free government, have usually wreaked their alternate
malignity on each other...."
- James Madison in The Federalist No. 43,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Oct 15 2003 - 16:08:29 PDT