Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (8753)	1/11/2006 5:49:16 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541488

I don't remember us agreeing on phone conversations. I searched, and couldn't find anything directed to me about such an agreement. And how long did this take to be found out? "Eventually" is the operative word, and that is still iffy. The more totalitarian the government, the less likely anyone will find out. IMO, audits are a better approach. They are after the fact, which is a down side, but they can't be hidden as easily. Using moles is also an effective measure.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (8753)	1/11/2006 8:22:19 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541488

Not So, If you require warrants then a judge gets to find out who the goverment is planning to go after How are you going to effectively require warrants. You can make the law say anything you want but when and how it will be enforced is an important consideration. In criminal cases the requirement for a warrant is enforced through the exclusionary rule. If you didn't get a warrant, than the information you obtained may not be admissible and the perp may walk. That method doesn't work as well with Intel gathering. Many of the people observed will never have any action taken against them, and if action is taken against them there is a good chance it won't be prosecution. They may be killed, deported, or detained, they may just become the focus of more intensive surveillance. The exclusionary rule never becomes a factor. Tim