Warrantless wiretaps

HarrySchell

New member
From the Providence RI Journal:

POTUS can't have them to pursue jihadis, but when it comes to the local crackheads in a penny-ante state....

State Police, ACLU at odds over phone records legislation

May 14, 2007

PROVIDENCE, R.I. --Police departments would be able to obtain Rhode Islanders' telephone and Internet records without court review or a warrant under legislation pending before the General Assembly.

The Rhode Island State Police, which is pushing the legislation, said it is too time-consuming when investigating Internet crime to appear before a judge to get a warrant. But critics say the bills would infringe on citizens' privacy rights and do not guarantee that the records are needed for a legitimate purpose.

"It amounts to a wholesale invasion of Rhode Islanders' privacy," said Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Under the legislation, any police chief, the state police superintendent and the attorney general would be able to issue subpoenas requiring companies that provide communications services to turn over names, addresses, local and long-distance telephone records and other information.

Though the police currently must receive a warrant from a judge before getting the records, the proposed legislation would do away with that requirement.

Craig Berke, a spokesman for the state court system, said a search warrant can typically be obtained in less than an hour and that the police are able to call judges at home if there's an urgent need at night.

The bills are pending before the House and Senate judiciary committees but may be revised. Identical legislation died in the General Assembly last year after sharp criticism from civil liberties groups.

Gov. Don Carcieri would not back a bill strongly opposed by civil liberties groups, spokesman Jeff Neal said, but has not taken a position on whether the police should be required to go before a judge to obtain the records
 
Do you have something agains Rhode Island?

but when it comes to the local crackheads in a penny-ante state....

After working in LE and once upon a time working for a major Telecommunications company in the department that coordinated wiretaps and such, I personnally never saw a real issue with getting a Judge's signature. Never really slowed down any of the FBI, DEA, or State Police agencies we worked with.
 
Do you have something agains Rhode Island?

but when it comes to the local crackheads in a penny-ante state....

After working in LE and once upon a time working for a major Telecommunications company in the department that coordinated wiretaps and such, I personnally never saw a real issue with getting a Judge's signature. Never really slowed down any of the FBI, DEA, or State Police agencies we worked with.


That's because you saw it at the end when it actually got to the judge. You didn't see all of the hoops and loops the agent had to jump through to get it to that point. It can take from two weeks to two months to get a wiretap order from a federal judge. In some situations that is not a problem and in some situations, that is two weeks to two months too late.

I don't disagree with anyone who says that for most crimes, that is a reasonable delay to preserve our freedoms. I do disagree with anyone who says that two weeks to two months is a reasonable delay when you are talking about someone who is planning to commit mass murder of our citizens as a terroristic act.

It's easy to say that's okay when you think someone you don't know is about to get blown up, but how many people here would stand on that principal if they knew that it was going to be someone in their family who was going to get killed because of that delay? Not many, I'll bet.

It's also easy to be against everything without offering any reasoable alternatives, a luxury those who are actually out doing things to stop stuff like that, don't have.
 
HarrySchell, your post is titled "warrantless wiretaps" however the article doesn't mention anything about wiretaps? What are you trying to spin here?
 
HarrySchell, your post is titled "warrantless wiretaps" however the article doesn't mention anything about wiretaps? What are you trying to spin here?
__________________


Yeah, I noticed that, too. Perhaps, he doesn't know the difference in wiretaps and what the article is about.
 
I noted exactly the same thing, that the printed article concerned "telephone and Internet records" but had nothing at all to do with "Warrentless wiretaps".

I would hope that most American companies would willingly cooperate with law enforcement and national security investigations by providing access to their records. Those who do not, should be presented with a search warrant.

Best Regards,
Richard
 
I take it you forgot to read the part about me being in LE.

Again, never saw a big problem. Either with providing information as the article states or your implications about wiretaps. But that is my own experinece.
 
Back
Top