Brian Varine wrote: > Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that terrorist groups > are involved in drug trafficking, simple fraud, and money laundering? I think that's the justification that they use to enable abuse of holes punched in the Bill of Rights in the name of anti-terrorism. We have existence proof of people who are clearly *not* terrorists being treated as terrorists under the law because it is convenient for law enforcement, e.g. the guy with the crystal meth lab being charged with manufacturing "chemical weapons." He had no connection to terrorists; he's just a tweaker with a skanky meth lab. So bust him for running a meth lab under existing drug law, but don't abuse the notion of "terrorist" with this BS. It trivializes the Bill of Rights. Crispin > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Todd Ellner <mailto:tellner@private> > *To:* crime@private <mailto:crime@private> ; > alan@private <mailto:alan@private> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2003 5:55 PM > *Subject:* Re: CRIME Wiretapping WiFi > > >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. > > > > -- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://immunix.com/~crispin/ Chief Scientist, Immunix http://immunix.com http://www.immunix.com/shop/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Oct 15 2003 - 17:33:32 PDT