Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by diamond geezer, Apr 5, 2004.
What would be the problem with this? They would still have to get a wire tap approved through the courts. So what do you have issue with?
My issue would be that a backdoor would likely be accessible to hackers.
IIRC, under PATRIOT ACT they wouldn't need a warrant to surveille your communications.
everybody got their newspeak dictionaries handy?
Are your phone lines not vulnerable to wiretapping by a physical 'hacker' right now?
I thought under the Patriot Act they still have to obtain a court order.
there are certain activities exempted from the need to acquire one. iirc, the FBI (and other agencies?) can obtain credit reports w/o one. one is still needed to enter your home, but the provision of informing you it was done has been removed.
i believe the pseudo is correct -- electronic eavesdropping is also exempted. further, your ISP is forbidden from telling you it happened.
It's a lot harder to wiretap for real than to sit at a terminal in Singapore and listen in on a converstaion taking place halfway around the globe.
Think about that for a second. Ok, sure you actually have to make a physical trip to the location. But it's all in your skill set. I personally find it MUCH easier to physically wiretap someone than to figure out the code-monkey skills I'd need to hack into some program. With the right equipment I could sneak over to my neighbors house and tap it while they are gone.
BTW, do you ever talk on a cordless phone?
Oh, and it's not that I don't agree with you on the privacy issue, I just think the vulnerability to exploitation by skilled persons is not the strongest foot to put forward here. As the president asserts, the ability to communicate privately is essential. Unfortunately he feels it only applies to him.