New wiretap order could affect Webster
By: Andy Dierker
Issue date: 11/10/05 Section: News
Despite the talk of wiretapping and the federal government, there have been few public challenges to the law on free speech grounds. This is because the government will still have to have a court order before conducting any surveillance.
"The days of the old movies where the government comes and climbs the telephone pole to listen in, those are long since gone," Haffner said. "In the digital world, the phone companies with the appropriate search warrant can already listen in to phone conversations. If they came in here tomorrow with a legal document and wanted to see e-mail logs, we would help them do that. I suspect what they want is the ability to do it remotely."
Haffner emphasized that, to his knowledge, there was no explanation as to what kinds of information the government could gather, only what mediums they could extract the information from.
This doesn't matter to some. Griffith Brownlee, an adjunct professor at the University of Mississippi, said she considered the new law to be very much a civil liberties issue.
"I disagree that this is not a civil liberties issue," Brownlee said in an e-mail. "Once the door is cracked open, the foot will follow. Pardon me if I've lived too long to trust any federal agency's ability to exercise restraint."
Brownlee said "a separate court order should be required to access my home data which also contains my husband's and children's information. Should my university employer pay for the service mentioned, the touch of a button gives the federal government everything on my personal computer, which I use at home to check my office e-mail."
Brownlee also expressed concern that the government's ability to tap in without having to come to the university would eliminate one of the few barriers that stops the government from abusing the new law.
"Anything made easy is subject to abuse," Brownlee said. "The government should have to work harder, pay more and clearly justify its intrusion into the life of any citizen."
"The days of the old movies where the government comes and climbs the telephone pole to listen in, those are long since gone," Haffner said. "In the digital world, the phone companies with the appropriate search warrant can already listen in to phone conversations. If they came in here tomorrow with a legal document and wanted to see e-mail logs, we would help them do that. I suspect what they want is the ability to do it remotely."
Haffner emphasized that, to his knowledge, there was no explanation as to what kinds of information the government could gather, only what mediums they could extract the information from.
This doesn't matter to some. Griffith Brownlee, an adjunct professor at the University of Mississippi, said she considered the new law to be very much a civil liberties issue.
"I disagree that this is not a civil liberties issue," Brownlee said in an e-mail. "Once the door is cracked open, the foot will follow. Pardon me if I've lived too long to trust any federal agency's ability to exercise restraint."
Brownlee said "a separate court order should be required to access my home data which also contains my husband's and children's information. Should my university employer pay for the service mentioned, the touch of a button gives the federal government everything on my personal computer, which I use at home to check my office e-mail."
Brownlee also expressed concern that the government's ability to tap in without having to come to the university would eliminate one of the few barriers that stops the government from abusing the new law.
"Anything made easy is subject to abuse," Brownlee said. "The government should have to work harder, pay more and clearly justify its intrusion into the life of any citizen."
