

EFF on new electronic privacy bill - government will need to get warrants - grellas
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/05/eff-applauds-new-electronic-privacy-bill-tells

======
dtrizzle
I rarely speak up on this issue because I'm sure most everyone in these parts
disagrees, but I do prosecution and I believe it's important to at least see
the other side of the issue. I understand why people want warrants. But I
believe people thing it's as easy as filling it out and walking in and getting
it signed.

As it stands now, our courts are jammed up. Courts set 10-30 trials to start
when there is only one courtroom available. People have to wait in line for
hours to pay for traffic tickets. Yes, they have to wait to give the
government money. Police officers wait in court to get warrants read and
signed. They wait hours. Sometime they have to come back days later to be seen
by a judge.

In short, for a warrant requirement to be workable, we need a lot more judges,
courts, and police officers.

As it stands now, a warrant requirement will make it impractical to prosecute
lower level offenses due to the time and resources it would take to get a
warrant. For instance, stalking cases, restraining order violations (with
electronic contact), criminal threats, etc. will go unprosecuted. That leaves
a whole lot of crime victims with very little recourse.

~~~
illumen
Or, you could aim for less prosecutions of crimes that don't matter, and could
aim for fixing social problems that cause people to commit crimes.

For example, work towards reducing homelessness. Towards harm minimization
policies for drug users.

For example, do not allow media companies or other corporate companies to
abuse criminal courts to collect civil debts.

Work on fixing those problems, and then there will be less waste of the courts
time.

~~~
anigbrowl
Not to be a smartass, but isn't that what public defenders do? Remember,
politicians pass budgets, make policy, and are ultimately the authors of laws.

Prosecutors can advocate for the sort of policies you describe up to a point
(our AG in California inclines this way, and her Republican opponent at the
last election had a variety of reformist ideas too). But it's specialized
work. If the DoJ assigns an attorney to prosecute cybercrime, there's not much
s/he can do about the the drug war or reforming the copyright system.

At the higher levels, prosecution is more of a political position - a district
attorney, attorney general, or a US attorney does have a fair amount of
flexibility and influence over policy. But there are relatively few of those
jobs, and if you don't have one you don't have a great deal of freedom as a
junior prosecutor to go off in a different direction. Even high level
prosecutors are subject to a great deal of political pressure from
legislators.

The other thing to bear in mind is the cost. The private-sector legal industry
can pay very well indeed. Wages in the public sector are pretty dismal by
comparison. Federal judges are paid less (~$145k) than first-year associates
at a big law firm (~$160k). The Chief Justice of the United States is paid
about $220k. It's a terrible deal, and all the underlying budgets are badly
underfunded as well. Not just pay; last time I looked the DoJ's 2012 budget
for electronic discovery (document management systems) was only $20 million.
Corporations often spend more on a single case. Most of the DoJ budget goes to
law enforcement and prisons; attorneys get 6-7% and the court system gets
about 3%. DoJ gets about $30 billion in total; to put that in context, DHS
gets closer to $60 billion. In many ways, we get what we pay for.

------
DenisM
Is it time to write your senator to support this bill? I wish EFF was more
clear on the timing.

~~~
Natsu
If you do, make it clear which parts you support and which parts need work. As
they say, it's a mixed bag right now.

Or if you just want to be lazy, write them and tell them that you're
encouraged by their progress on the bill, but you would like them to listen to
the EFF's concerns and send them a link to the article.

------
retrogradeorbit
"government will need to get warrants"

Yeah, sure it will. Just like it needs to obey the constitution. Or can't pass
retroactive laws.

This idea is based on the premise that the USA still has a strong rule of law.
It doesn't.

~~~
HedgeMage
The rule of law is _only_ as strong as the people's opposition to it being
broken. Of course the government flouts the law on a pretty regular basis: how
many people are willing to stand up and say "enough!" -- and I don't mean only
when there is nothing to lose?

~~~
retrogradeorbit
I agree in principle but disagree is specifics. Saying enough is enough will
get you nowhere. The government will ignore whatever voice opposes it and do
what it wants. And what are you going to do? Vote them out? By voting for the
other wall-street backed, lobbyist owned stooge party? The big game is clearly
rigged. And "the people" don't seem to have enough money and/or guns to change
things. But maybe I'm wrong.

I would express the underlying sentiment that I agree with as follows: the
rule of law is only as strong as the belief that the legislature, executive
and administration places in it.

At the end of the day laws are just words on paper. It's our belief in them
that makes them real. And there is less and less belief in them every day. And
unfortunately the example shown, at least by many ex-colonies, is once the
rule of law starts to slide it is a steady, self-fulfilling decline into
bloodshed. I sure hope things can be turned around before such things, but I
am far too cynical to believe in fairy tales. But I do so want to be proven
wrong.

------
joe_the_user
Oddly enough, Leahy seems to be one of the ones who introduced the (draconian)
"Protect Intellectual Property" act. I wonder what the EFF's strategy in
lauding him is.

<http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=142072>

~~~
jaskerr
That you take the good (enough) when you can get it?

