e-Claire

Thank you 9th Circuit ...I think

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday [Nov 18, 2003] that the FBI is not legally entitled to remotely activate the [OnStar "Communication System"] system and secretly use it to snoop on passengers, because doing so would render it inoperable during an emergency.

Slooooow down, there, cowboy. Just what is the Court disallowing, again?

After learning that the unnamed system could be remotely activated to eavesdrop on conversations after a car was reported stolen, the FBI realized it would be useful for "bugging" a vehicle, Judges Marsha Berzon and John Noonan said. When FBI agents remotely activated the system and were listening in, passengers in the vehicle could not tell that their conversations were being monitored

I see. In a private car. No mention of any terms like, oooh, "warrant" or "probable cause" here, either. hmm. Hokayfiiine. Tell me again why the Court decided that the feebs FBI will not be allowed to listen in on private conversations in privately owned cars without the knowledge of the conversers?

"The problem (the court had) with the surveillance was not based on privacy grounds at all," Sobel said. "It was more interfering with the contractual relationship between the service provider and the customer, to the point that the service was being interrupted. If the surveillance was done in a way that was seamless and undetectable, the court would have no problem with it."

Hey, kids! Can you say pyrrhic victory? David Sobel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center can -- and did.

Under current law, the court said, companies may only be ordered to comply with wiretaps when the order would cause a "minimum of interference."

This law does include a mention of an "oath of affirmation" to a "judge of competent jurisdiction," [not necessarily "competent perceptual abilities," but whaddya want] and a "statement" concerning anticipation of an actual offense and requiring "details" thereof. Also a time related statement of justification [including the actual phrase, "probable cause"] to believe that additional communications will occur thereafter; but not time limiting, per se. Hey, this is why I didn't go to law school -- reading this shit important material bores me silly. That's as far as I'm goin' wit' that. Apparently, if you pop your airbags or push the panic button while the FBI is ...er, enjoying your conversation, the system will not call the cops/911 but will only "emit a tone over the already open phone line." Ah, except in the [dissenting] opinion of Judge Richard Tallman, who notes that "there is no evidence that any service disruption actually occurred. The record does not indicate that the subjects of the surveillance tried to use the system while the FBI was listening. One cannot disrupt a service unless and until it is being utilized." He continues, apparently with a straight face, "The record indicates that the only method of executing the intercept order in this case involved activating the car's microphone and transferring the car's cellular telephone link to the FBI. This conduct might have amounted to a service disruption, had the subjects of the surveillance attempted to use the system, but there is no evidence that they did. " [oy. 12 years of college . . .] I do see your point, Judge Tallman, that no actual harm did occurr; but isn't this ruling about possible potential harm? [!?] I mean by that harm other than emasculating, eviscerating, and defenestrating the Constitutional right to privacy. Which I realize it is arguable does not exist -- except in the minds of the foolish, uneducated morons whom we must protect from themselves citizens. [breathe, woman, breathe . . .] Back to the majority opinion: Is it just me, or is there a tone in this quote?

"The FBI, however well-intentioned, is not in the business of providing emergency road services and might well have better things to do when listening in than respond with such services to the electronic signal sent over the line," the majority said.

Can't quite put my finger on the kind of tone, but it seems to involve simultaneous flavors of snark, snip, and boots 'n' tongue meanwhile excusing the Agency from actually, oh... coming to the aid of a citizen in peril, even a potentially criminally involved one. Might just be me, though... Well, I'm off to the garage to give my old, un-microphoned SUV a nice oil change and tune up. She gets lots of TLC these days. Look around -- these Chevys can run for years if the wetback undocumented worker "nuevo citizen" population is any evidence. ThanQ! Neal Boortz

<< Back to main