Quote:
Originally posted by rgr22j
You have to realize that many people are under the impression that the Patriot Act is the government's ticket to a police state. It isn't. Patriot II, for example, allows the FBI to get a "roving wiretap" on a cellular telephone from any district court in the country. Sound extreme? No. It's simply a reflection of technology: traditional phones don't move. Under the current legislation, if the FBI has a warrant for a wiretap on a cellular telephone in one district, the instant that phone moves into another district, the FBI must get a new warrant. For tracking drug runners, this is a needless hindrance (Patriot II is supposed to merge the Patriot and Victory Acts into a single bill).
-- Alvin
|
You've attributed the modifier 'roving' to the line being tapped instead of to the warrant.
"Roving" wiretaps grant the ability to tap all the phones an individual may use--not just a cell phone that moves from one area to the next. While this may be a reflection of technology in that people have more access to phone lines than they have in the past, such assertions don't detract from the very real threat the erosion of historical principles against government intrusion into our personal affairs.
Traditional warrants have been limited to specific times, places argets.
Investigators do look and listen to content--they then are supposed to ignore things they aren't investigating. This would not, of course, apply to crimes they become aware of while doing their official duty--similar to cases where an agent of the state (a fireman, for example) witnesses a crime at a house even if he were called there to extinguish a fire.