Wiretapping - right or wrong

[SurfDemon]

I was reading through the (very interesting on all sides) thread "Wow this guy is on our side", and was interested in the views expressed about wiretapping. I thought it worth taking off into a seperate discussion.

Let me start out by saying that I am absolutely on the fence on this one, and could be swayed either way.

On one hand, I believe it is a very powerful tool for catching criminals, but on the other hand I also don't buy the "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" argument, as most of us do actually have something to hide, there is nothing illegal about having secrets. In fact many companies rely on secrecy as part of their corporate model (think Coke-Cola recipe etc.). The thought of those secrets falling into the hands of a petty minded human (there are unfortunately plenty of these types in the worlds police forces) scares the living daylights out of me.

So, in fairness I think I would be all for the government being able to tap all phone calls, as long as the data recorded could only be used if there was VERY strict controls over who gets to access the information. Which comes back to having judicial procedures to restrict the use of wiretapping....

What are your thoughts?

[FunkyDexter]

Basically the same as yours. I don't like the idea of being wiretapped myself and I trust my government, police and judiciary about as far as I can throw them (I tend to respect the bodies more than the individuals but that's a whole 'nother discussion) so it's definitely not a power I want handed out without checks. On the other hand I do see it's usefulness in prevention of crime so it's not a power I want completely removed from the table either. Requiring warrants (i.e. judicial aproval) is an imperfect compromise but is probably the best we're like to achieve.

One thing I really don't understand is why wiretap evidence is inadmissable in court in the UK. I'm assuming that the evidence has been obtained through legal processes (warrants granted prior to tapping etc) so why single it out over any other kind of evidence?

[SurfDemon]

I found this article

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06..._consultation/

Which has the quote

MI5 has been reluctant to allow wiretap evidence to be admitted in court fearing it would expose interception techniques

But I don't buy that. I suspect that the UK has just been caught on the hop, and it's one of those things that just never got sorted.

(To be honest I didn't know it was inadmmisable until I read your post and went googling.)

[capsulecorpjx]

I was reading through the (very interesting on all sides) thread "Wow this guy is on our side", and was interested in the views expressed about wiretapping. I thought it worth taking off into a seperate discussion.

Let me start out by saying that I am absolutely on the fence on this one, and could be swayed either way.

On one hand, I believe it is a very powerful tool for catching criminals, but on the other hand I also don't buy the "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" argument, as most of us do actually have something to hide, there is nothing illegal about having secrets. In fact many companies rely on secrecy as part of their corporate model (think Coke-Cola recipe etc.). The thought of those secrets falling into the hands of a petty minded human (there are unfortunately plenty of these types in the worlds police forces) scares the living daylights out of me.

So, in fairness I think I would be all for the government being able to tap all phone calls, as long as the data recorded could only be used if there was VERY strict controls over who gets to access the information. Which comes back to having judicial procedures to restrict the use of wiretapping....

What are your thoughts?

Wiretapping without notifying or oversight from the Judicial branch is wrong and illegal.

Which is what the Bush administration was doing (maybe still is doing?).

It's not a black and white issue. Wiretaps are used and always will be used for various criminal investigations, petty or terrorist.

However, it's when the Executive Branch thinks it no longer needs to answer or notify the Judicial branch about these wire-taps, when things gets more Totalitarian.

[FunkyDexter]

But I don't buy that.

Me neither. That would be an argument for choosing not to use it in certain cases, but not for making it inadmissable.

However, it's when the Executive Branch...

Yep, that pretty much covers my position too.