Government to Eavesdrop on Lawyer-Client Conversations

An Anonymous Coward writes: "This CNN article outlines the justice department's plans to start monitoring lawyer-client communications of detainees. The decision was made by the justice department without any public debate or the involvement of the Senate or Congress. It's astonishing how easily a basic civil right such as the right to counsel is taken away!" The ACLU is, predictably, opposed.

Comments

Welcome to the Police State

[Dredd13]

Not to say "I told you so", because I'm preaching to the choir, but this is just another step towards ensuring that the citizens of this modern day Republic can become subjects of an oppressive government again.

This is completely useless against terrorists. Terrorists don't hire lawyers and chat about their actions beforehand. Terrorists plan long and quietly, and then without warning even their friends and roommates, they blow shit up.

The only excuse for policies such as this is to enable fishing expeditions where people "suspected" of something can have their rights and privacy stripped away from them without them even knowing it.

Re:Welcome to the Police State

[Reality Master 101]

Once upon a time, the Constitution was worth a whole lot more than just 6000 lives.

No one is talking about throwing the constitution out the window. No, not even Bush et al. But sometimes you have to live in the real world, not this ivory tower world where the police have no surveillance powers at all and must catch all criminals in the act with a full video record.

The law is about balancing the ivory tower with practical needs. And in a time of war when the enemy is actively seeking nuclear weapons, the scales need to tip more toward immedate needs.

The constitution is not worth a damn if our freedom and liberty is taken away by external enemies. Personally, I like my freedom and liberty.

Re:Welcome to the Police State

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

That's an exaggeration to make the point, but I think we can be a little flexible and recognize when very practical problems need a resolution, like terrorists using lawyers to plan their next attack. If we ever caught bin Laden and put him in jail, does anyone doubt that is exactly what would happen?

Um, I doubt it. I think many sane people doubt it. Do you think that guys like that will ever assume they are not being bugged, no matter what constitutional guarantees are declared? The effect of this is to chill attorney-client privilege in all cases for no demonstrable gain. The power to monitor exists already... it's just locked behind that quaint, old-fashioned stumbling block, judicial oversight .

The DOJ is proposing limiting a time-honored and well-established right. It's doing so despite the existence of mechanisms to achieve the stated ends. It's doing so without offering a single instance wherein this behavior has occured. It's doing so without offering a single instance wherein the new rules would have prevented a terrorist act. I believe it's reasonable to ask for proof and evidence before sacrificing a constitutional guarantee, even in a small way.

This should not be that surprising

[peripatetic_bum]

I dont know if you know this, but the I remember the 'BAR' made a new resolution that if a lawyer knows his 'client' is actively breaking the law that he needs to report him. It seems that there seems to be a shift from the wildly permissive atitude of a lawyer-client privacy to a more balanced view, but if this CNN report is true, then who isnt safe from being 'listened' in on, without any due process.

Clarifications

[Debillitatus]

There are a few things in the article which are not mentioned, or perhaps even misrepresented, in the summary. When I first read the summary, I was both surprised and worried, because it sounds pretty rough.

But as the CNN article states, this monitoring has many restrictions. First, the detainee must be informed of it, so there is no potential for the type of abuse which would make all detainees afraid to speak to their attorney; everyone would know when they were subject to such monitoring. Second, and even more importantly, this monitoring cannot be used as evidence against the detainee. The summary doesn't mention this, and this is crucial. The monitoring can only be used for informational purposes, to stop other crimes. And it is common that detainees communicate with the outside world with their lawyers, and I'm sure we can all believe there are situations where the detainee is communicating details of future crimes to their associates.

I guess one thing is true is that this probably has less to do with terrorism than the administration would have us believe. It seems as though this is something which would be more effective against organized crime than terrorism.

But once you actually read the article, this isn't such a big deal, and, in the grand scheme of things, might even be a good idea.

Re:Read the article

[Silver A]

This only applys to people who are granted a special administrative measure which applys to less than a tenth of a percent of people. And only to people who the AG says "reasonable suspicion exists to believe that a particular inmate may use communication with attorneys or their agents to further or facilitate acts of terrorism".

Well, let's be smart about this, then - don't allow the prosecution access to the tapes, only the military and intelligence agencies. We've got a reasonable suspicion that Prisoner X is a terrorist, and is using his lawyer to communicate with other terrorists? Let the CIA or the FBI track down others with those conversations, but don't let the prosecutor have those tapes. That way, Prisoner X still has a right to a fair trial, and we still get to track down terrorists.

Good grief...

[markmoss]

... because they're PRISONERS. As far as I'm concerned, they have no rights whatsoever. They are the ones that violated OUR rights in one way or another. They are detainees, NOT convicted of anything, and in general NOT EVEN CHARGED with anything. One man was held for three weeks because he called the FBI and told them that he had rented a room to one of the hijackers for a while...

I guess landlords are automatically criminals, eh?

Slashdot Headline out of line

[daviskw]

Did you read the article or are you just posting inflamatory material for kicks. First, the Government never said Council was being denied. Second, they put up huge road blocks to insure that Government lawyers don't have access to privledged information. Third, they tell the prisoners that this particular action is being taken. All of this is safeguarded by a requirement that they have to show to a judge that there is a good chance the prisoner knows something about future terrorist attacks.

Not to mention that if a future terrorist attack did happen and they could have prevented it by listening in on the interviews, loss to life could be catastrophic.

Remember the life you save, could be your own.

Re:is that really...

[npietraniec]

Go read 1984 by George Orwell. You're innocent until proven guilty. If you're innocent, there's no reason to spy on you.

This won't fly.

[VanL]

First, note the link on the attached story: this is a *proposed* rule, not an accepted one.

Second, the attorney-client privilege is one of the most strongly-defended privacy rights. While it is true that attorney-client privilege does not protect prospective crimes, in order to break the privilege, the government must be able to convince a judge that there is a very strong likelihood of the commision of a crime in the near future. Being in jail, even for a heinous crime, is not grounds for a strong suspicion.

Bottom line: They may try this, but the first judge who sees it will throw it out.

SURE you can expect the gov't to keep their word..

[Sleepy]

... just ask any Native American how good the word of our government is.

Expect COMPLETE PARITY between the laws governing "terrorism" and the war on "drugs".

The irony is, the people pushing for these laws are the same people who screamed bloody murder about Ruby Ridge, or Waco Texas. Now it's their turn.

And since ANONYMOUS TIPS can be used to gain a search warrent, I sincerely doubt the claim "none of this is admissible". Just launder you ill-gained evidence through an anonymous tip, get a warrant, and use that evidence instead. There are enough loopholes to fit a fleet of 18-wheelers through.

Naivety

[TheSHAD0W]

What makes you think the police, Federal or otherwise, don't already try and listen in on lawyer-client communications? I'm sure they get all sorts of hints and tidbits. They can't use the recordings in court, of course; all they have to do is make up a new train of investigation that (re)leads them to the evidence.

The only difference now is that they no longer have to go to the trouble.
</paranoia>

Re:Attorney-client privelege.

[Angst Badger]

"No information that is protected by attorney-client privilege may be used for prosecution," the statement said. "There is not protection however, for communications related to the client's ongoing or contemplated illegal acts."

Right, and we can really believe that FBI Agent #1 won't tip off FBI Agent #2 to what he heard while monitoring Federal Suspect #3. Sure. The FBI would never do anything like engage in campaigns of surveillance and harassment against law-abiding political dissidents or civil rights activists, or ever do really nasty crap like try to pressure someone like Martin Luther King to commit suicide. No, of course not. Our state security agencies would never do anything like that again. Right?

Why is it that so many people who will pursue server security with a level of paranoia approaching psychosis are totally unconcerned with protecting their civil rights against liberty crackers like John Ashcroft?