Juries 'should hear phone taps' to nail crime gangs

[Dave Bird]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <003301c25a54$3dbf5fe0$285708c3@oml>, Owen Lewis
<oml@sysrx.uk.com> writes
>> >3. It is axiomatic that many forms of electronic eavesdropping are easly
>> >rendered nugatory if the method of their execution is understood.
>>
>>  Actually it isn't, except perhaps the extent to which the tracing
>>  can or cannot be followed onto mobiles and pay-phones.
>
>I disagree and so might many others.
>
>>  The only lesson from routine tapping is that "Your phone can be
>>  bugged and you almost certainly won't be able to detect the
>>  existence of bugging.  
>
>Not so. Unless you are referring only the 'bugging' of the man in the street
>by some govt agency.

 Correct, I meant bugging by police and spooks (presumably the only sort
 the governement is interested in keeping effective?).  When you're 
 dealing with someone who can invisibly program the exchange to divert
 the calls, there is very little to deduce from the technique except 
"your phone can be bugged at any time and this will not be detectable."

 Such people have main targets on regular surveillance, and add 
 associates to the list for a while if/when they seem to be involved
 in suspect transactions.  If you talk to Duncan Campbell about
 intelligence services dirty tricks :) you might go on the list
 for a couple of weeks.  

- -- 
   ^-^-^-@@-^-;-^   http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
        (..)__u     news:alt.smoking.mooses

       happy as a clam at high tide -. <_" .-._.-.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBPYEpdnpGxv7MBb4WEQJ/swCdHOZrbH0BlSn2h/fhxBiXt5zMgHwAn1ar
yFuoaQHRJQrGaWeOU8WEQfrT
=VI4R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----