SPAM: -------------------- Start SpamAssassin results ---------------------- SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future. SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. SPAM: SPAM: Content analysis details: (5.7 hits, 5 required) SPAM: Hit! (2.7 points) Subject contains lots of white space SPAM: Hit! (1.0 point) Received via an IP in dynablock.njabl.org SPAM: [RBL check: found 96.179.156.141.dynablock.njabl.org.] SPAM: Hit! (0.4 points) Received via a relay in dnsbl.njabl.org SPAM: [RBL check: found 96.179.156.141.dnsbl.njabl.org.] SPAM: Hit! (0.6 points) DNSBL: sender ip address in in a dialup block SPAM: Hit! (1.0 point) DNSBL: Received via an IP in dynablock.njabl.org SPAM: SPAM: -------------------- End of SpamAssassin results --------------------- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Reconstructing Electronic Surveillance Law Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:42:02 -0400 From: Daniel Solove <djsolove@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <415A3349.1050705@private> Declan, I have just posted on SSRN the latest version of my essay, Reconstructing Electronic Surveillance Law. I think that you and the Politech audience would find this essay to be of interest. It can be downloaded at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=445180 The essay examines electronic surveillance law in light of the USA-Patriot Act. The USA-Patriot Act has sparked a fierce debate. However, the pros and cons of the USA-Patriot Act are only one part of a much larger issue: How effective is the law that regulates electronic surveillance? The USA-Patriot Act made a number of changes in electronic surveillance law, but the most fundamental problems with the law did not begin with the USA-Patriot Act. Electronic surveillance law suffers from significant problems that predate the USA-Patriot Act. The USA-Patriot Act indeed worsened some of these problems, but surveillance law had lost its way long before. Surveillance law is thus in need of a radical reconstruction. I explore specific difficulties with the scope, standards, and enforcement mechanisms of the electronic surveillance statutes. I then turn to the more deeply-rooted and systematic problems. Electronic surveillance law is overly intricate and complex. It has failed to keep pace in adapting to new technologies, and it provides for insufficient judicial and legislative oversight. I propose ways in which surveillance law should be reconstructed to address these problems. My solution is a radical one: Warrants supported by probable cause should be required for most uses of electronic surveillance. Furthermore, I suggest that Congress draft a charter regulating the FBI. I am very interested in any thoughts and comments you or the Politech audience has about the essay. Regards, Daniel J. Solove Associate Professor of Law George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington, DC 20052 http://www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/ _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Sep 30 2004 - 22:15:35 PDT