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..."