Computers, Privacy & the Constitution

View   r5  >  r4  ...
TaehyoungKwonFirstPaper 5 - 12 May 2008 - Main.EbenMoglen
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="WebPreferences"
Line: 34 to 34
 
Added:
>
>		-- TaehyoungKwon - 23 Mar 2008

  • The problem with taking this position on the basis of the Spitzer case is that the Governor, a public official, was subjected to surveillance under court order, namely properly-issued warrants, upon probable cause shown, in an investigation undertaken by prosecutors who had every reason to believe they were investigating bribery or other official corruption, which is an appropriate occasion for the use of the tools they took in hand. Even the original warrantless financial surveillance to which Spitzer was subjected, and which was the only part of the surveillance not classically permitted under the fourth amendment, was specially applied to him because he was a high public official, and of the rules subjecting him to that surveillance he had actual knowledge. To treat him as an example of the unfairness and constitutional invalidity of current investigative practices is really quite difficult in view of the facts.

  • But without the Spitzer example, the essay is not fresh in any way--it merely repeats, with one interleaved statistic on Korean telephone interceptions, the argument I made in class. I agree as a political matter with everything you've said, but I think you would have had a stronger essay if you had used other illustrations and sought to go beyond our class conversation in your chosen direction.
 
Deleted:
<
<		-- TaehyoungKwon - 23 Mar 2008
 


Revision 5r5 - 12 May 2008 - 21:42:19 - EbenMoglen
Revision 4r4 - 25 Mar 2008 - 04:07:47 - TaehyoungKwon
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM