Slashdot Mirror

Almost all of Hillary's lead in the popular vote is covered by Los Angeles County by itself. Basically, you're arguing that winning one small, compact geographically but dense population area is all you need to become President. Why would anyone campaign outside of NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia? That's 18 million people in those cities. The rest of the US you could just get a wash or slight loss and still win.

Title III of the wiretapping law "Title III authorizes only a court of "competent jurisdiction" to issue wiretap orders. The term is defined as a "court of general criminal jurisdiction of a State who is authorized by a statute of that State" to issue wiretap orders" (Reference: http://pd.co.la.ca.us/overv.htm)

Ok, lets do this slowly.. When ever you are attempting to quote context of a law, it is imperative that you look at the actual law instead of somebodies rendition of it. Perhaps you couldn't find it because it is Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act and not the wiretapping law (I know, I looked for the wiretapping act once too). Here is the relevant subsection describing the procedures to get a warrant. Please take a good look at section 7 where is says (paraphrasing) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, If certain conditions are true or believed to be true, a law enforcement may intercept such wire, oral, or electronic communication if an application for an order approving the interception is made in accordance with this section within forty-eight hours after the interception has occurred, or begins to occur.

This clearly states that a wire tap can happen without a warrant. Granted If a warrant isn't present or applied for within 48 hours then the information cannot be used against the person. But it is clear enough that if the communications result in something usable, a Warrant can be sought after the fact as well as the cops could use any information to pursue other leads.

FISA, if I recall requires a FISA court to issue the order. Besides that, not al parts of the FISA bill are even constitutional.

FISA doesn't require a warrant when the other person is not a US citizen or in US jurisdiction. That part has always been open to the president. But I'm wondering what is unconstitutional about it. In 2002 the FISC review court ruled that it was constitutional and the patriot act was too. It lists many other cases in it's order including the famous Kieth case which the supreme court holds it as constitutional saying that it is the nature of the threat, not the nature of the government's response to the threat, that determines the constitutionality of national security surveillance.

In a sealed case under review by the same court, It mentions "The Truong court, as
did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent
authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information"

Both cases are an interesting read. You should at least check them out.

As for constitutional protection of non-citizens, you are correct that citizens are granted more protection than non-citizens, but MANY sites, including the ACLU website, among others, clearly state that the Bill of Rights applies to anyone within the borders of the United States

I don't go off of what other sites say when there is a good deal of question over the legitimacy of things. I look for the language in court decisions on the subject at hand. For instance, the courts have ruled that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to special law enforcement needs like searched at the borders because the need to secure the border out ways the protections. There are other cases too. For a non-citizen legally in the country, a good majority of the right apply because they don't give your right but restrict the government from infringing on them. However, non-citizens in the country illegally don't have that favor. Well until recently when the supreme court ruled in opposition of itself on Samson Dada but if you read the opinion, dissentin

Ok, let's try this again...

Period. End of story Your wrong... Both title III and FISA laws allow for tapping an American citizen without a warrant at all under specific circumstances. Perhaps you should investigate what your talking about before making such bold statements.

Title III of the wiretapping law "Title III authorizes only a court of "competent jurisdiction" to issue wiretap orders. The term is defined as a "court of general criminal jurisdiction of a State who is authorized by a statute of that State" to issue wiretap orders" (Reference: http://pd.co.la.ca.us/overv.htm)

So, clearly, wiretapping always requires some type of warrant issued by a court.

FISA, if I recall requires a FISA court to issue the order. Besides that, not al parts of the FISA bill are even constitutional.

As for constitutional protection of non-citizens, you are correct that citizens are granted more protection than non-citizens, but MANY sites, including the ACLU website, among others, clearly state that the Bill of Rights applies to anyone within the borders of the United States.

And, to be honest, if Telecoms didn't break any laws, then why do they need retroactive immunity? Let the cases go to court and let the judge rule in favor of the Telecoms

California hate crime law from the DA's office. ... threatening to use force to injure, intimidate, or interfere with another person who is exercising his or her constitutional rights.

Here is the mailto: for Sandi Gibbons, The L.A. County D.A.'s spokesperson with the obnoxious opinion in this piece.

She can probably be deluged with your complaints, and general opinion on her political future, and that of sitting D.A., Steve Cooley. He's tried to frame himself as holder of a non-partisan office, but this makes his acknowledged party affiliation pretty obvious. He previously insulted jurors and responsible in the failure to prosecute the attackers of Donovan Jackson.

A more civil feedback form is available at http://da.co.la.ca.us/feedback.htm. I think Ms. Gibbon's own e-mail might garner more attention.

Here is the mailto: for Sandi Gibbons, The L.A. County D.A.'s spokesperson with the obnoxious opinion in this piece.

She can probably be deluged with your complaints, and general opinion on her political future, and that of sitting D.A., Steve Cooley. He's tried to frame himself as holder of a non-partisan office, but this makes his acknowledged party affiliation pretty obvious. He previously insulted jurors and responsible in the failure to prosecute the attackers of Donovan Jackson.

A more civil feedback form is available at http://da.co.la.ca.us/feedback.htm. I think Ms. Gibbon's own e-mail might garner more attention.

Why ironic? The LA DA is the one who filed the charges, not the White House. So where's the connection?

According to the biography for the DA (http://da.co.la.ca.us/history/cooley.htm), the man has never had anything to do with the Republican Party (not directly, at any rate). He's also never held any posts in either Texas or DC, so there's no direct connection between him and Bush. So, again, could you expand on this whole White House conspiracy connection to which you referred?

Unless you were just commenting on the original memos, which seem to state that Diebold was using faulty and/or shoddy equipment. That's a different matter.

As for whether I should comment on your comments, get over yourself, Marty. You can always make me your foe (http://slashdot.org/zoo.pl?op=check&uid=214229). I won't be offended. Hell, I wouldn't even care. Then you won't be bothered by having to read my ironic drivel.

Of course, it all depends on what one means by "one wiretap". A single order can cover multiple phones... There have been some spectacular cases of abuse when only "one" wiretap was involved.

http://pd.co.la.ca.us/CACJ.htm

In this case, one wiretap meant '..twenty-two more telephones and an entire Cellular Telephone Company the first month. Continuing for another 21 months, and adding more telephones with each extension, the wiretap on the Atel Cellular Telephone Company finally ended almost two years later having wiretapped some 250 telephones. That figure does not include the hundred or so telephones intercepted by "spin-off" wiretaps which named the same cellular telephone company as the target...'

The details of the case are pretty shocking, to include the willingness of the police and prosecutor's office to lie under oath and resist every attempt to scrutinize what they were doing. THIS type of activity is why people start to react with understandable concern. "The Horrors" indeed!

Insurance companies have incentive to make it more efficient. Lower Costs = Higher Margins and that they can charge less so more people can buy health care from them so they get more money.

As for the welfare department problems?
http://da.co.la.ca.us/wf/conv.htm
http://www.caltax.org/Fraud.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/WRAP/WelfareFraud.htm l
http://www.svcn.com/archives/saratoganews/02.09.00 /indoor-gym-0006.html
http://da.co.la.ca.us/mr/120904a.htm

Medicare/Medicaid has similar fraud problems. You can look those up yourself. Try "Medicare and Fraud" or "Medicade and Fraud"

Given the money spent on welfare I could employ over 1.6 Million people at $30K/year and cut the unemployment rate significantly. As is, we are paying them to not work and stay unemployed.

As for including the Entire H&HS budget? It's cause Medicare/Medicaid is in there (and makes up most of it) and it is what we have been talking about here. And I notice that the amount spent on Medicare/caid is still greater than the DoD budget.

Insurance companies have incentive to make it more efficient. Lower Costs = Higher Margins and that they can charge less so more people can buy health care from them so they get more money.

As for the welfare department problems?
http://da.co.la.ca.us/wf/conv.htm
http://www.caltax.org/Fraud.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/WRAP/WelfareFraud.htm l
http://www.svcn.com/archives/saratoganews/02.09.00 /indoor-gym-0006.html
http://da.co.la.ca.us/mr/120904a.htm

Medicare/Medicaid has similar fraud problems. You can look those up yourself. Try "Medicare and Fraud" or "Medicade and Fraud"

Given the money spent on welfare I could employ over 1.6 Million people at $30K/year and cut the unemployment rate significantly. As is, we are paying them to not work and stay unemployed.

As for including the Entire H&HS budget? It's cause Medicare/Medicaid is in there (and makes up most of it) and it is what we have been talking about here. And I notice that the amount spent on Medicare/caid is still greater than the DoD budget.

http://da.co.la.ca.us/mr/042604a.htm

This has also been covered briefly on Engadget and more thoroughly on BoingBoing, where links to the original article and the District Attorney's report are provided.

p

Dear User,

your Internet Protocol number has been logged for legal purposes in accordance with our efforts to reduce the increasing amount of sexually abusive language on this site and to comply with the Rules Of Governance In Electronic Media as required by Californian law.

We are to inform you of the legal steps taken against the holder of mentioned number, which we hereby do.

Please refer to the Bureau Of The Attorney Of Los Angeles (CA) county to request your case number, as this message is generated electronically and we have no means to determine the case number at this moment.

Thank you.

now we have trackable cellphones (which are becoming ubiquitous), rfid chips, red-light cameras with OCR, etc. pretty easy and non-paranoid to imagine the automated abiity to track anyone anywhere.

True, but thankfully, in many cases, the agencies who have control of the technology are very reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement.

A week ago, my Transportation Planning class went on a field trip, where (among other locations) we visited the Route 91 Express Lanes and the ATSAC (made famous by "The Italian Job") Control Center. Route 91 has license plate cameras and OCR equipment which identifies toll evaders when they enter the Express Lanes as well as 35 incident cameras along the 10-mile route, and ATSAC has cameras all over Los Angeles which can watch intersections and streets for incidents. *Both* agencies mentioned that law enforcement has repeatedly approached them for cooperation and information, and that they *never* allow it without a court order.

I think the reasoning was best expressed by the engineer at ATSAC, who said that if they used their cameras for enforcement, it wouldn't be long before the cameras were routinely vandalized and smashed to bits.

It's not about what the technology can do; it's about who controls it and what they perceive as their responsibility.

Dear Sir or Madam,

your Internet Protocol number has been logged for legal purposes in accordance with our efforts to reduce the increasing amount of abusive usage of this site's functionality and to comply with the Rules Of Governance In Electronic Media as required by Californian law.

We are to inform you of the legal steps taken against the holder of mentioned number, which we hereby do.

Please refer to the Bureau Of The Attorney Of Los Angeles (CA) county to request your case number, as this message is generated electronically and we have no means to determine the case number at this moment.

Thank you.

Dear Sir or Madam,

your Internet Protocol number has been logged for legal purposes in accordance with our efforts to reduce the increasing amount of sexually abusive language on this site and to comply with the Rules Of Governance In Electronic Media as required by Californian law.

We are to inform you of the legal steps taken against the holder of mentioned number, which we hereby do.

Please refer to the Bureau Of The Attorney Of Los Angeles (CA) county to request your case number, as this message is generated electronically and we have no means to determine the case number at this moment.

Thank you.

Still photographers use flash units that are designated 'master' and 'slave,' so I guess L.A. County won't be hiring any photographers or buying any flash photography equipment. I could see that being inconvenient for a county that encompasses Hollywood.

>= straw man crap

I have better things to do than listen to this. If you have no argument, I've won, and I'll leave it at that. PCs are obviously better than Macs in so many ways, and you're unable to beat my arguments, so that's ok.

>Machine code is not a language.

Then you know far less than you purport. If it's not a language, pray tell me, how was I able to do my second year EET project in it?

>You're living in fantasy land if you think you sell even a tenth as many of those as Adobe has sold copies of Photoshop.

Hmmm, let's see. If I (a small computer shop) were able to sell even 1/100th of the amount of cards as Adobe sells copies of photoshop, that would make me right. I mean, in my city alone, there's 20 computer shops. That makes a lot more cards sold than copies of photoshop in Ontario alone, doesn't it?

Or are you just spouting off vitriol again?

>Those are not statistics. My hat remains uneaten.

I took statistics classes. If you don't think that's a statistic, fuck off. You're just not right.

>Which does not, by the way, encompass a niche-market such as PCI-card signal decoders.

Let's see:

3 satellite stores in my city.

1 DTP shop.

Hmm, I'd say you're wrong. But perhaps you live in one of those strange parts of the world (Northern Alaska?) that is pretty much unable to receive satellite signals.

>Ahhh, I see, so you're a bit of a pirate? Let's see if I can get you in trouble with a few phone calls and some research then.

If, my enemy, this is what this argument has come down to, I've won.

Again, HAND. No need to reply to your stupid crap any more.

These are the people I need to call to file a John Doe libel suit against you, right? I'm not sure about US law, so perhaps you could enlighten me. Let's see if I can get you in trouble with only one phone call. Fortunately for me, you guys are 3 hours behind, so I have ample opportunity.

You're absolutely right; the LEAs DO have to jump through hoops to do legitimate, legal wiretaps. I don't see anything wrong with that, but it's really beside the point.

Because, you see, we're not talking about legitimate, legal wiretaps. It's all about the wiretaps that are being done by, say, the LAPD as parts of massive, unconstitutional cash grabs.

Gee, maybe there needs to be better protection against such abuse? Maybe the CALEA system needs to be secured?

As for the point of my post, I'd like to note that I was referring to the Clinton Administration's attempts to enforce key escrow. Seven prominent cryptographers and security experts stated that key escrow carried this sort of risk. Are they just ignorant? Was key escrow demonized by the media, too?

Pal, I take the Fourth Amendment seriously. I do my best to educate myself about topics like CALEA and key escrow, and I'm careful about who I trust for information. CALEA is the fucking mess that the cipherpunks and other civil liberties organizations claimed it would be-- period. Key escrow, thank God, didn't become mandatory, so it died. I'm just drawing a fuckign parallel.

You're absolutely right; the LEAs DO have to jump through hoops to do legitimate, legal wiretaps. I don't see anything wrong with that, but it's really beside the point.

Because, you see, we're not talking about legitimate, legal wiretaps. It's all about the wiretaps that are being done by, say, the LAPD as parts of massive, unconstitutional cash grabs.

Gee, maybe there needs to be better protection against such abuse? Maybe the CALEA system needs to be secured?

As for the point of my post, I'd like to note that I was referring to the Clinton Administration's attempts to enforce key escrow. Seven prominent cryptographers and security experts stated that key escrow carried this sort of risk. Are they just ignorant? Was key escrow demonized by the media, too?

Pal, I take the Fourth Amendment seriously. I do my best to educate myself about topics like CALEA and key escrow, and I'm careful about who I trust for information. CALEA is the fucking mess that the cipherpunks and other civil liberties organizations claimed it would be-- period. Key escrow, thank God, didn't become mandatory, so it died. I'm just drawing a fuckign parallel.

Los Angeles already has http://www.la.ca.us/, which is a beautifully succinct, yet detailed, URL, IMHO.

because LA already has a domain under .US. There is in fact a second one if you prefer a more verbose address. I think there are a few US cities that use the .US TLD in the .. fashion. It seems that this practise is much more common outside the US though.

A much better TLD for businesses in Los Angeles would be to have something like www.business-name.la.ca.us

Also aren't TLDs like www.la for countries?

Frankly as a resident of Los Angeles, I am insulted by this. In fact I should be getting a discount since I'm in LA!! :)

Also do they even check if you're actually in LA?

I don't know if Mayor Hahn and the city council might be upset or happy about this. But they might not be able to do much about it, since probably the city government has no jurisdiction over the TLD.

They already have la.ca.us. The city government domain even has a web page.

This is an abstract of what looks like a comparable study done with dolphins. Most of the original classification of species was done using fairly gross comparisons - almost to the level of "are they basically the same shape?" (sympatric morphotypes). What Heyning's group is doing is to compare the DNA sequence of a elements from a mitochondrial gene, cytochrome b, isolated from different dolphins or whales. Mitochondrial DNA is unique, in that it does not mix with nuclear DNA and is only transmitted to offspring from the mother, not the father. This means that since different species do not interbreed, species specific differences in mitochondrial DNA sequences will be more pronounced than in the more "typical" gene sequence. By grouping individual animals by mitochondrial DNA sequences, they can then use this to go back and identify subtle differences in physiology that you otherwise couldn't do with the small subpopulation of beached whales.

A similar approach has been used to analyze human evolution, among other things.

On the first tier are seven federal judges, appointed to staggered seven-year terms by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Each judge takes a turn reviewing applications submitted by the attorney general. He or she sits in a sealed, vault-like chamber on the top floor of the Justice Department headquarters, where the door is always locked and guarded and the room is regularly inspected for bugs.

In the unlikely event that the first tier rejects an application, the Department of Justice can appeal to the FISA Court of Review. Should this three-member panel of judges also deny the request, it could then be heard by the Supreme Court. Those last two progressions up the judicial hierarchy have proved strictly unnecessary,
however. Federal Judge Robert W. Warren from Wisconsin, senior panelist on the second tier FISA Court of Review, joked that he has not exactly been overwhelmed by the workload since his appointment in 1989.

We've never met since I've been on it, said Warren. I was sent a designation by the Chief Justice, and I asked a couple of people what in the world the court did because I had not even heard of it before I got that designation. I also had some correspondence with my brethren on the court and we've talked to each other and said, `What are we supposed to do?' and, `When is something going to happen?' Nothing ever has happened. It's an empty title as far as I am concerned at this point.

Based on the remarkable record of servility the first-string spy court has achieved on surveillance requests 15 years with only one rejection, and that one on technical grounds new requests for physical searches are unlikely to cut into the Review Court's happy schedule.

• The LA County Public Defender's Office is appealing over 500 cases where the real or circumstantial evidence was primarily due to illegal wiretaps. The LAPD conducted thousands of illegal wiretaps each year (acknowledged in numerous state and federal reports) but get les than 100 legal wrrants every year (except 1998, when they got 328, vs 24 in first 6 mos of 1999). The corruption went all the way up to the elected District Attorney of Los Angeles, Gil Garcetti, and judge were 'informally aware' of the practice, but signed anyway. For details, see Deputy Public Defender Kathy Quant's summary article or the W.I.R.E.D Project (Wiretapping Investigation, Research, Education, and Defense), both at the LA County Public Defender's Office website.
• An unnamed officer hears an unknown Hispanic man mentioning that he will be recieving a wire transfer of a substantial amount of money that day. There is no mention of drugs, even in code, as the investigators later admit. His colleagues (not linked to the illegal wiretap) invent a confidential informant ("CRI") who claims the money is drug-related, and notify local banks. When the Hispanic man goes to the bank to make a a withdrawal for the amount mentioned, the money is seized. It takes him years to get it back, though he demonstrates early on that the money is from his grandmother's estate, and was being wired so he could buy a house. This case, euphoniously named U.S. v. $265,260.32 in US currency US CV 97-4442 AHM (CWX) (A federal case - money is often 'arrested' under RICO and other laws, because money does not have civil rights) cites several other cases where equally blatant abuses have taken place (including US v $39,000 in Canadian Currency, to be fair to our northern neighbor).
• Agencies even illegally bug themselves and each other, as this recent case in CT illustrates.

• Judge Perry authorized the San Bernadino District Attorney to wiretap public pay phones in drug traffic areas for 4 months. The results:
  • 131,202 individuals' conversations intercepted, taped, and will be kept by the DA for 10 years...
  • 10 - Incriminating Conversations were obtained as result of violating the privacy of 131,202 people.
  • 0 - Arrests Made. NOT ONE ARREST.
  • Oh, it cost San Bernadino Taxpayers over $625,000.
• A similar order by Judge Czueleger ordering blanket wiretapping of LA jail pay phones for the first 6 mos of 1997 also resulted in no convictions, and cost $1,119,422.
• In '98 ot '97 (don't have the Fed report with me), the states ordered roughly 1200 legal wiretaps, resulting in three arrests per wiretap, on average. Only one arrest in four was convicted, however.

On the first tier are seven federal judges, appointed to staggered seven-year terms by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Each judge takes a turn reviewing applications submitted by the attorney general. He or she sits in a sealed, vault-like chamber on the top floor of the Justice Department headquarters, where the door is always locked and guarded and the room is regularly inspected for bugs.

In the unlikely event that the first tier rejects an application, the Department of Justice can appeal to the FISA Court of Review. Should this three-member panel of judges also deny the request, it could then be heard by the Supreme Court. Those last two progressions up the judicial hierarchy have proved strictly unnecessary,
however. Federal Judge Robert W. Warren from Wisconsin, senior panelist on the second tier FISA Court of Review, joked that he has not exactly been overwhelmed by the workload since his appointment in 1989.

We've never met since I've been on it, said Warren. I was sent a designation by the Chief Justice, and I asked a couple of people what in the world the court did because I had not even heard of it before I got that designation. I also had some correspondence with my brethren on the court and we've talked to each other and said, `What are we supposed to do?' and, `When is something going to happen?' Nothing ever has happened. It's an empty title as far as I am concerned at this point.

Based on the remarkable record of servility the first-string spy court has achieved on surveillance requests 15 years with only one rejection, and that one on technical grounds new requests for physical searches are unlikely to cut into the Review Court's happy schedule.

• The LA County Public Defender's Office is appealing over 500 cases where the real or circumstantial evidence was primarily due to illegal wiretaps. The LAPD conducted thousands of illegal wiretaps each year (acknowledged in numerous state and federal reports) but get les than 100 legal wrrants every year (except 1998, when they got 328, vs 24 in first 6 mos of 1999). The corruption went all the way up to the elected District Attorney of Los Angeles, Gil Garcetti, and judge were 'informally aware' of the practice, but signed anyway. For details, see Deputy Public Defender Kathy Quant's summary article or the W.I.R.E.D Project (Wiretapping Investigation, Research, Education, and Defense), both at the LA County Public Defender's Office website.
• An unnamed officer hears an unknown Hispanic man mentioning that he will be recieving a wire transfer of a substantial amount of money that day. There is no mention of drugs, even in code, as the investigators later admit. His colleagues (not linked to the illegal wiretap) invent a confidential informant ("CRI") who claims the money is drug-related, and notify local banks. When the Hispanic man goes to the bank to make a a withdrawal for the amount mentioned, the money is seized. It takes him years to get it back, though he demonstrates early on that the money is from his grandmother's estate, and was being wired so he could buy a house. This case, euphoniously named U.S. v. $265,260.32 in US currency US CV 97-4442 AHM (CWX) (A federal case - money is often 'arrested' under RICO and other laws, because money does not have civil rights) cites several other cases where equally blatant abuses have taken place (including US v $39,000 in Canadian Currency, to be fair to our northern neighbor).
• Agencies even illegally bug themselves and each other, as this recent case in CT illustrates.

• Judge Perry authorized the San Bernadino District Attorney to wiretap public pay phones in drug traffic areas for 4 months. The results:
  • 131,202 individuals' conversations intercepted, taped, and will be kept by the DA for 10 years...
  • 10 - Incriminating Conversations were obtained as result of violating the privacy of 131,202 people.
  • 0 - Arrests Made. NOT ONE ARREST.
  • Oh, it cost San Bernadino Taxpayers over $625,000.
• A similar order by Judge Czueleger ordering blanket wiretapping of LA jail pay phones for the first 6 mos of 1997 also resulted in no convictions, and cost $1,119,422.
• In '98 ot '97 (don't have the Fed report with me), the states ordered roughly 1200 legal wiretaps, resulting in three arrests per wiretap, on average. Only one arrest in four was convicted, however.

On the first tier are seven federal judges, appointed to staggered seven-year terms by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Each judge takes a turn reviewing applications submitted by the attorney general. He or she sits in a sealed, vault-like chamber on the top floor of the Justice Department headquarters, where the door is always locked and guarded and the room is regularly inspected for bugs.

In the unlikely event that the first tier rejects an application, the Department of Justice can appeal to the FISA Court of Review. Should this three-member panel of judges also deny the request, it could then be heard by the Supreme Court. Those last two progressions up the judicial hierarchy have proved strictly unnecessary,
however. Federal Judge Robert W. Warren from Wisconsin, senior panelist on the second tier FISA Court of Review, joked that he has not exactly been overwhelmed by the workload since his appointment in 1989.

We've never met since I've been on it, said Warren. I was sent a designation by the Chief Justice, and I asked a couple of people what in the world the court did because I had not even heard of it before I got that designation. I also had some correspondence with my brethren on the court and we've talked to each other and said, `What are we supposed to do?' and, `When is something going to happen?' Nothing ever has happened. It's an empty title as far as I am concerned at this point.

Based on the remarkable record of servility the first-string spy court has achieved on surveillance requests 15 years with only one rejection, and that one on technical grounds new requests for physical searches are unlikely to cut into the Review Court's happy schedule.

• The LA County Public Defender's Office is appealing over 500 cases where the real or circumstantial evidence was primarily due to illegal wiretaps. The LAPD conducted thousands of illegal wiretaps each year (acknowledged in numerous state and federal reports) but get les than 100 legal wrrants every year (except 1998, when they got 328, vs 24 in first 6 mos of 1999). The corruption went all the way up to the elected District Attorney of Los Angeles, Gil Garcetti, and judge were 'informally aware' of the practice, but signed anyway. For details, see Deputy Public Defender Kathy Quant's summary article or the W.I.R.E.D Project (Wiretapping Investigation, Research, Education, and Defense), both at the LA County Public Defender's Office website.
• An unnamed officer hears an unknown Hispanic man mentioning that he will be recieving a wire transfer of a substantial amount of money that day. There is no mention of drugs, even in code, as the investigators later admit. His colleagues (not linked to the illegal wiretap) invent a confidential informant ("CRI") who claims the money is drug-related, and notify local banks. When the Hispanic man goes to the bank to make a a withdrawal for the amount mentioned, the money is seized. It takes him years to get it back, though he demonstrates early on that the money is from his grandmother's estate, and was being wired so he could buy a house. This case, euphoniously named U.S. v. $265,260.32 in US currency US CV 97-4442 AHM (CWX) (A federal case - money is often 'arrested' under RICO and other laws, because money does not have civil rights) cites several other cases where equally blatant abuses have taken place (including US v $39,000 in Canadian Currency, to be fair to our northern neighbor).
• Agencies even illegally bug themselves and each other, as this recent case in CT illustrates.

• Judge Perry authorized the San Bernadino District Attorney to wiretap public pay phones in drug traffic areas for 4 months. The results:
  • 131,202 individuals' conversations intercepted, taped, and will be kept by the DA for 10 years...
  • 10 - Incriminating Conversations were obtained as result of violating the privacy of 131,202 people.
  • 0 - Arrests Made. NOT ONE ARREST.
  • Oh, it cost San Bernadino Taxpayers over $625,000.
• A similar order by Judge Czueleger ordering blanket wiretapping of LA jail pay phones for the first 6 mos of 1997 also resulted in no convictions, and cost $1,119,422.
• In '98 ot '97 (don't have the Fed report with me), the states ordered roughly 1200 legal wiretaps, resulting in three arrests per wiretap, on average. Only one arrest in four was convicted, however.

I have to say, I've always harbored concerns about the FISA courts (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), which are essentially a shadow judiciary that supposedly oversees, reviews, and approves FED intelligence wiretapping within the US. Congress has been looking into it sporadically since the 1997 wiretap report, but though they find abuses left and right, and issue sternly worded rebukes, they haven't taken any action yet.

The last I heard, the FISA court had never refused a single one of the 15,000 requests for domestic surveillance made of it, and only a tiny handful (under 10, IIRC) had even had to resubmit, and requests have been skyrocketing since 1993 (averaging about 250/yr in the 15 years from 1978-1993, but currently at 1000+/yr per Freedom of Information Act documents) Meanwhile, 'normal court' wiretap warrants have grown only several percent a year. (*)

The NY Times and other newspapers have written about the FISA system, but the Web has made me lazy (and besides, how many of you would look up a dead tree citation) so here are two URLs [Artcle I] [Article II]. You can find much more info with a G oogle Search for [FISA wiretap] (without brackets).

BTW, if you're interested in such things, you should look at the many articles on the huge increase in state wiretaps and the LA County DA's investigation of massive illegal wiretapping by the LAPD

See for yourself, the next scheduled meeting is Jan. 10, 2000:

http://lacountycourts.co.la.ca.us/CivilCalendar/Ca lendarCase.cfm?CaseNumber=BC216606

Obviously the gov can't stop everyone from using crypto. They know that. They just want to stop most people from using crypto. And they've done that very effectively so far.

Only about one percent of email traffic is encrypted. Most people don't even know that web browsers come in "domestic" and "international" flavours, let alone what version they have. Cellphone traffic is encrypted weakly, if at all. Landline telephone traffic is almost completely unencrypted.

To accomplish this the feds have done everything they can to discourage the free flow of cryptographic software. The export controls have been one of the most effective means for this, as it gives them a sort of veto over what products can be sold. In theory they can only stop export, but in practice most companies want to sell one product globally, and that means government-approved crypto. The feds are going to do everything they can to maintain this status quo.

Bernstein argued that source code was speech because it expresses an intellectual construct. The gov argued that it was a functional device because it can be compiled to perform a function. They're both right of course, and it's up to the courts to decide how to resolve the issue.

It's conceivable that the government will manage to convince the court to sit on the fence. I'm no legal expert, but this is what I think will happen:

-- The courts will rule that source code is speech if it is intended to express an idea, but a functional export-restricted device if it is just intended to be compiled into object code. The intent will be the deciding factor.

-- The feds will interpret the ruling as meaning that you have to prove that your source code will not be compiled by some foreigner. If you can't accomplish this impossible task, they won't let you export the software. Anyone who exports unapproved crypto will face the possibility of criminal charges for violating export regs. Even if such charges are totally bogus, it would mean a long and drawn-out court battle. Most hardware and software companies won't take the chance. This type of government FUD has worked very well to date.

-- End result: Bernstein can export the Snuffle source, but the export restrictions remain fundamentally unchanged.

Check out this link for some interesting wiretap info.

The problem with any of these analogies is that there's no need for a Southwest on the Web, really; it doesn't cost any more to go directly from Boston to Los Angeles on the Web than it does to go through a bunch of other cities. You have to define what the cost is (some type of relvancy index, I suppose) before any analogy would make sense.

That said, other than webrings, Search engines could be your Southwests. They get you to places directly, but they traverse the web themselves through a series of links.

Another possible interpretation: any real surfer is her own Southwest, who, when trying to find a piece of information, hits various hubs, and follows links to the source in a somewhat roundabout but usually successful manner. The analogy's weak.

There's a much closer analogy to Southwest airlines when you look at the Internet than the Web, clearly; then you do have well-defined hubs (the big backbone routers) and carriers, who, admittedly, use each others' networks. It would be as if Southwest could get you from Dallas to Porvoo, Finland by flying you on its planes through its hubs to New York, then getting you on a British Airways plane to London, then a FinnAir plane to Helsinki, then a FinnAir prop to Porvoo. Feel free to extend that analogy...