 |
|
|
|
 |
arturob
Supreme tranceaddict

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Miami
|
|
|
Jan-18-2002 05:49
|
|
|
 |
 |
lMIlk
Moderat0r
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: super size fries
|
|
|
it doesn't matter much to me, i'm not a terrorist. i'm just a 16 year old boy looking at loads of porn
|
|
Jan-18-2002 06:25
|
|
|
 |
 |
Rostros
Carbon Sasquatch

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: United Kingdom
|
|
|
Congressional Affairs
July 24, 2000
Mr. Brian Gallagher
Editor of the Editorial Page
USA Today
1000 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22229
Dear Mr. Gallagher:
In response to today's editorial about "Carnivore," again let's get the facts correct.
USA Today rightly points out that "law enforcement agencies cannot operate without ways to monitor the modern communications tools of criminals" but then questions who should ensure that privacy is properly protected. The simple answer is the same as it has been for over 30 years--federal judges. All of the federal criminal and civil sanctions and judicial oversight that apply to wiretapping and have effectively protected those not the target of a court order apply to the use of Carnivore to intercept the e-mails of criminals.
Unlike as the editorial reflects, however, Carnivore does not snoop through every Internet communication, does not spit out everyone's e-mail, and is not an unrestrained Internet wiretap. Court orders authorizing the intercept of criminals' e-mails come only after rigorous review and the conclusion that there is probable cause that a crime is being or has been committed, the e-mails are about or in furtherance of that crime and the intercept is necessary to gather evidence about the crime. The orders are specific as to whom and what can be intercepted and then the courts supervise the interception to ensure compliance. Evading those court orders is a serious crime which would, of course, produce absolutely nothing of evidentiary value.
Finally, the editorial says the "Bureau won't answer even the most basic questions about whom the technology targets and how it protects the privacy of innocent users." Contrary to that assertion, however, the FBI has shown the system to and answered these questions for dozens of people on Capitol Hill and over 30 reporters representing 25 media outlets. USA Today, of course, was invited and today we are anxious to present it at an open hearing before a congressional subcommittee. We are arranging for an independent review as well.
Sure Carnivore can be controversial and clearly is ill-named. But it is used only pursuant to court order; has been used sparingly, predominantly in terrorism cases, and then only when an Internet Service Provider cannot on its own comply with the court order; and, when used, collects only what the law authorizes and the courts instruct be collected--evidence about serious crime that cannot be otherwise gathered.
Sincerely yours,
John E. Collingwood
Assistant Director
Office of Public and
Congressional Affairs
|
|
Jan-18-2002 13:20
|
|
|
 |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:20.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|