Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Security, Due Process and Convenience

Posted by timothy on from the give-me-mumble-or-give-me-death dept.

teambpsi writes: "CNN is running an article about ISPs' concern over having law enforcement present during a court-ordered search. Since we are an ISP, I can understand the concern, however, also being a privacy freak, I think it adds a certain weight to the decision of wether to file the search in the first place. It adds a certain levity. I'm not sure what percentage of these search warrants are unnecessary, but I think that having due process in place is important. Opinions?"

6 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. hm by tps12 · · Score: 4, Informative
    I think it adds a certain weight to the decision of wether to file the search in the first place. It adds a certain levity.

    Aren't "weight" and "levity" opposites?

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
  2. Things are really getting scary... by keep_it_simple_stupi · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not only is this going on, but surveillance is increasing, and penalties are being stiffened for "cyber-crime". More info here.

  3. It's the law... by NorthDude · · Score: 2, Informative

    I find it disgusting that someone can escape justice because of en "error" in procedure, but if it was not that way, we could all be prosecuted. It's better to have one bad guy escape the justice and all the others be free, then to abandon all of our rights for one bad guy. It's the investigators obligations to make things right and honestly to catch those who brake the law. If they were to not respect any privacy rights and other rights to catch the "vilain", we would live under siege. You MUST make sure that you, as an ISP, make things the way they should be. To respect others privacy and right. And in the end, it can only help to make sure that the bad guy wont escape law.

    --


    I'd rather be sailing...
  4. Procedure by Shalda · · Score: 3, Informative

    I would expect proper procedure to generally be issuance of a subpoena for records. A search warrant should only be issued when the subpoena is refused, or the ISP is being investigated as an accessory. IANAL, but I do watch a lot of cop shows on TV. Search warrants should always be performed by law enforcement personel. That's probably the biggest difference between what makes it a search warrant and a subpoena.

    --
    bance.net
  5. Re:ISPs... by 2names · · Score: 2, Informative

    So, following this logic, only people who are breaking the law in their homes should be concerned about the police searching their homes? We all should be concerned. This type of thing is covered in the Constitution under illegal search and seizure. Besides, for a warrant to be issued in the first place there has to be some probable cause or at least SOME evidence or implication that a crime has occured.

    --
    "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
  6. Re:"unreasonable" burden or not... by bourne · · Score: 3, Informative

    Civillians shouldn't be given so much power over the conduct of a search. The police like to give them that power, because they aren't held to the same standards.

    Not true - when a civilian is conducting a search in response to a search warrant, they are held to the same standards as law enforcement because they are a law enforcement proxy. An ISP's legal right to monitor traffic is actually reduced when law enforcement presents a formal request, because they have to start monitoring by the (stricter) rules that the government lives under.

    IANAL BIPOOS