Re: Re: IP: RE: G-8 OFFICIALS CONSIDER TREATY FOR CYBERCRIME LAWS

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> To: "Baker, Stewart" <SBaker () steptoe com>
> Cc: farber () cis upenn edu
> Subject: Re: IP: RE: G-8 OFFICIALS CONSIDER TREATY FOR CYBERCRIME LAWS
> From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry () piermont com>
> Date: 20 May 2000 16:49:01 -0400
>
>
>
> > > That's not fair, Dave.  I don't know any Justice officials who would
> > > criticize the Bill of Rights as hamstringing law enforcement.
>
> However, it appears that over the decades, many Justice officials have
> knowingly violated the bill of rights. Sure, it is convenient to
> forget about the abuses that have occurred over the years -- but
> congressional investigations and the courts seem to have uncovered
> them none the less. Perhaps if we pretend they weren't there people
> may forget them.
>
> Now, I suspect that every illegal wiretap, every COINTELPRO
> infiltration and the like was conducted by an official who would never
> have been so stupid as to say, in public, that they loathed the bill
> of rights (and indeed all human rights) and wished the stupid things
> would get out of the way, but that's just because they're smart enough
> not to say such things, not because they really believe in conducting
> themselves as though rights mattered.
>
> Law enforcement constantly tries to erode the rights of citizens. They
> never openly criticize such rights, but they often characterize them
> in interesting ways. The exclusionary rule, for example, is called a
> way to "let criminals go free because of technicalities" -- as though
> intercepting evidence illegally and then trying to use it in court
> should be rewarded. This is hardly the only instance of such
> wordsmithing.
>
> But back to the question of abuses.
>
> I'm sure that it will be claimed that all abuses are a thing of the
> past and that the people running Justice and its FBI division these
> days are a different breed, but I don't believe that, and neither does
> any other reasonable person. Abuses continue to occur -- and probably
> will occur so long as there is a government. After all, government is
> made up of human beings, some of whom are bad eggs, just like the
> general population.
>
> I am not scared by the notion that there might be rogues inside
> organizations like the FBI. That is, as I've said, just a function of
> the fact that humans run the organization.  What scares me is the
> absolute foolishness and stupidity of those who claim that we can
> ever, for as much as a moment, let our guard down and pretend that
> these organizations AREN'T run by fallible human beings, and that we
> can pretend that there AREN'T corrupt individuals in these
> organizations.
>
> As a society, we must structure the barriers law enforcement faces to
> assure that the job of the corrupt is made as hard as possible. That
> means we can't do things like giving the FBI access to intercepted
> communications without outside organizations being involved. This
> means that intercepting communications is more involved -- but that
> the odds that someone could get away with random interception are
> lower.
>
> It is true, by the way, that such measures make a policeman's job
> harder, but, as Orson Welles once noted, only in a police state is a
> policeman's job easy.
>
> --
> Perry E. Metzger                perry () piermont com
> --
> "Ask not what your country can force other people to do for you..."