Courts and bug product

[Roland Perry]

In article <47B25467.5050100@zen.co.uk>, Peter Fairbrother 
<zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk> writes
>"The alleged burdensome nature of the procedure" - - nonsense.

I'm not following this closely, but I'm sure I heard a comment in the 
media that allowing intercept evidence would require a complete 
transcript of all the intercepts being given to both sides in the case. 
I suppose that's because the defence would otherwise claim that the 
intercept was being selectively quoted [1]. But I'm sure the recent 
report on the matter has many more "reasons" than you and I can 
extemporise in five minutes.

>And now we come to "protect sensitive methods of investigation". What 
>"sensitive methods of investigation"???

For many years it was a matter of PIIC that mobile phones leaked the 
subscriber's location, even when he wasn't talking. Today, there are 
people who think that any mobile phone made in the last couple of years 
has a secret GPS chip inside [2]. Tinfoil hats notwithstanding, there 
are bound to be some things in between those two 'extremes' that would 
cause the average criminal to say "oh, I never knew that".

[1] As in critic quotes such as "anyone who thinks this is the best 
musical of the year is certifiably insane" subsequently appearing above 
the doors as "best musical of the year - Daily Blurb".

[2] This seems improbable to me, but I have never discussed the issue 
with anyone who might know.
-- 
Roland Perry