Wednesday, January 2, 2008

A Schnauzer Spy Story, Part III

Let's return to our "A Schnauzer Spy Story" series. In part I, we noted that I don't have all the facts nailed down in this tale of intrigue, so I will write about it in somewhat theoretical terms. But events very similar to this, have happened to your humble blogger. And we have shown that events in your personal life can have possible connections to events in a legal case. In part II, we went into details about strange things that can begin happening in your life, possibly as the result of conflict with officials in the justice system.

Now, we will show how people in power can abuse regular citizens and violate privacy laws. What tools are at their disposal? We've asked you to walk in my shoes, and my wife's shoes, to see what you would think if events like these happened to you. Let's pick up our story . . .


Most law-abiding Americans give little, if any, thought to the notion that someone might be conducting illegal surveillance on their telephones. But that's the first thing you and your wife think of when you both had the idea that someone might be interfering with her efforts to get a job.

You conduct some research, and here's what you find: It would be unbelievably easy for someone to track your phone calls, particularly if that person is, or has ties to, a judge.

What would such a person use? Probably a pen register or a trap and trace device. A pen register tracks all outgoing calls from a certain telephone number. A trap and trace device tracks all incoming calls to a certain telephone number.

The use of these devices by law enforcement is governed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. And how might someone in law enforcement be able to use such a device against a private citizen, such as yourself?

Why, by getting a court order--from a judge.

So you ask yourself, "Who would want to track my communications? Have I ticked off anyone lately?" Then the answer hits you--a judge!

What would keep a judge from abusing his powers to order surveillance? What would prevent a judge from violating privacy law in order to punish a litigant he considers troublesome? Nothing, that you can see, other than the judge's conscience--and perhaps the fear of getting caught.

But what if the judges has already shown he has a seriously diseased conscience? And what if the judge appears to have little fear of ever being caught?

(To be continued)

No comments: