 |
| Flaming drone near Salisbury, from CNN |
And, yet, the one instance where the violation of someone's privacy could seriously protect citizens' life and limbs from psycho killers, and also potentially exonerate people -- by which I mean the DNA swabbing of suspects-- the MD court won't allow that. Gives one no doubts about whose interests are really being served by MD's courts, no?
In other news of Baltimore denizens getting boned by The Man, go get those big banks, George Nilson.
5 comments:
Yes, the gubmit is watching, looking, listening and reading your emails, but one may consistently rely on the Big Brother's ineptitude so there isn't necessarily a need for great concern.
Years ago, back when I still showed up for jury duty I found myself on a very long federal drug case where an eager wet-behind-the-ears prosecutor had tapped the landlines of several alleged drug dealers who were busy allegedly using the US postal service to mail themselves alleged contraband.
The jury was treated to 700 pages of transcripts of conversations between the alleged drug dealers. It took several weeks to go through all the conversations. The alleged drug dealers spoke extensively about buying various groceries and getting them delivered. When it came time for deliberation, the jury was in agreement, the alleged drug dealers bought a lot groceries. Other than that, we couldn't come to any conclusions about the phone transcripts.
You'd have to either be really arrogant or really stupid (think Joe Paterno) if you insisted on discussing any sort of impropriety in detail on the phone or by email. If one can avoid alluding directly to breaking the law the government can't hang much on you.
"You'd have to either be really arrogant or really stupid ... if you insisted on discussing any sort of impropriety in detail on the phone or by email"
Well how else am I supposed to set up my drug deals, adulterous affairs, rent boys and stays in rehab, by smoke signal?
As my friend the Google privacy lawyer says, it's not what's being collected, it's who is looking at it. So maybe it's ok that the info is collected and the guvmint/ your employer/ husband's divorce lawyer is able to subpoena this info, but only looks at it with a proper warrant. But that doesn't sound like what is happening here with enforcement agencies.
Life becomes much easier when one assumes that their communications are being monitored, their emails are being read and they are being video recorded at all times. The first amendment is pretty clear, you got freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and freedom of the press.
The government and your husband's lawyer are already looking at your emails. If we want to have that revolution as long as the anti-bullying crowd doesn't strip us of our freedom of speech we're still good.
There is no privacy, there never was.
mb:
The Maryland Court of Appeals decision on DNA swabs conflicts with a number of other federal and state court rulings and probably won't survive an appeal to the US Supreme Court. The CoA has issued a number of dumb rulings over years (see their decision in the Leander Blake case) but unfortunately their stupidity mostly flies under the radar.
Wow, Cham, how Orwellian/Huxleyian/Burgessian of you. On this the legal precedent is clear: no lookie without a warrant/court order. I hope these issues make it to the Supreme Court soon.
Post a Comment