Be sure to share your comments in the Class Participation section below -- that's the best part!
You can use the arrows on your keyboard ← → to navigate pages.

Buy the books on Amazon
Join the conversation! There are now 13 comments on “Police vs Privacy pg 30
  1. Michael Totton says

    Why is the DA asking if he understands in the last panel? I’m sure this is a typo or something like that

    • No, it’s correct. The most explicit way to put it would be:

      > “As I understand, the clock is ticking; am I right?”

      shortened to:

      > “I understand (that) the clock is ticking?”

      swapped around to:

      > “The clock is ticking, I understand?”

  2. TehMeh says

    What about the Patriot Act doesn’t that mean its easy to get a wire tap?

    • No, the PATRIOT Act didn’t make it easier to get an eavesdropping warrant. It expanded federal authority to seek data about calls (like the number that was called, and how long the call lasted) and customer records (like billing information). But it didn’t remove obstacles to eavesdropping on the content of the communications themselves.

      There were a couple of things related to wiretapping for intelligence, rather than law enforcement, but we’re only talking about law enforcement here, so that’s beyond the scope of this discussion. And the “roving wiretaps” sometimes complained of (where they don’t need to apply for a separate warrant every time your target changes phones) have been something the feds have been allowed to do for something like 25 years.

        • You’re thinking of the FISA court, which is a somewhat different animal. And though I hadn’t originally planned to cover it and the NSA stuff, I’m thinking I have to now. Coming soon!

          • I just realized, we got to the end of the 4th amendment section and you hadn’t covered it.

            I realize there is a problem here in that it doesn’t fit into the criminal procedure section because the NSA isn’t prosecuting criminals, they are collecting intelligence for the military. Does this mean it will be in the criminal procedure section?

            • So anyone they come up with won’t be prosecuted? Yeah, right. And I don’t see what the military angle has to do with it; nowhere does it say the 4th amd. only applies to the police. (Which is pretty obvious when you think about it; going back to the colonists, protections against invasions of privacy by the bluecoats would hardly be effective if the crown could just have the redcoats do it instead)

              • What I mean is that one way we have of requiring the government to respect the 4th amendment is the exclusionary rule. But the exclusionary rule is of no use with the NSA

                • That’s because the NSA’s targets are only (supposed to be, but due to its confidential nature, the rest of the US basically has to take their word on it) foreign citizens on foreign soil, and US law doesn’t provide foreign citizens many (if any) protections.

                  However, if you are a US citizen, the NSA absolutely has to respect your 4th amendment rights, although I think there may be exceptions if you’re communicating with a foreign national located on foreign soil. Exceptions aside, the NSA would not be able to use any information they got from spying on a US citizen in a court unless they had a warrant.

  3. Kereth Midknight says

    This is it. This is the page where Pi officially turns auburn. She’s been mostly a solid brunette up to this point, with a few auburn flickers which appear to be lighting, but after this point, the reddish tint seems universal. I guess she dyed it.

Class Participation

___