Proposed Wire Tapping Law Has Supporters and Detractors
Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 09:43 AM EDT
Contributed by: Don Winner
Editor's Comment: As someone who spent more than 20 years of my adult life working as an Intelligence Analyst for the US military, I can say that anyone who has concerns over their rights to privacy can basically relax. In short, and while I know all of you Watergate children out there never like to hear a politician say "trust me" on these kinds of issues, there's really nothing to worry about as long as you're not breaking the law. This kind of change to law is directed 100% towards the people who are running tons of cocaine through this country every year, as well as those who commit all of the murders and money laundering associated with that activity. For example this morning Panamanian National Police authorities made another massive drug bust. The details have not yet been released but I understand it was like more than two tons or something. Today when those busts occur police officers always find a few of those $20 dollar "throw away" cell phones which the drug traffickers use to coordinate their illegal activities. If the cell phone companies are required to register a valid name, address, and ID number for every cell phone user, then at least detectives and investigators will have a chance of tracing that illegal activity (where no chance exists today.) And I know, before you really smart guys out there tell me all about the various ways to circumvent these measures, this kind of thing is always a "cat and mouse" evolution. This law is just one more step in the evolutionary process. And, there's so much data and traffic out there, if you're not involved in any illegal activity then there is virtually no chance anyone will care, at all, about violating your privacy. If you like to dress up like a school girl and pay Colombian transvestites to slap your ass and call you "Sally" then your secret is probably safe. And consider this - if this law were in effect then the police could use these records to do a "post mortem" check on the activities of the people who turn up dead with their bodies dumped in a ditch somewhere. They usually are able to identify the bodies, but they don't have a whole lot of success figuring out who killed them and why. Like, we know the dead guy is Juan Ramirez, and here's his cedula number, and even through we didn't find his cell phone we can see if he had one, why yes he did and here's the number, and here's the people he was talking to in the last two months, let's talk to those guys to see if we can figure out who killed him and why. Panama is ground zero - the front lines of the drug war - and law enforcement and justice officials should have access to every tool imaginable. Like it or not. And lastly, if you are breaking the law and this kind of thing makes you nervous - not over "privacy" issues but rather "I might get caught" issues - then you should do two things. Shut the hell up, and get the hell out, right now. While you still can. Run. And when you get there say "hi" to RJ, Steve, and Leslie for me, as well as every other former expat who has since run for cover once their illegal activities in Panama were discovered. I know people will get nervous, but this is exactly where the idea of "methinks thou dost protest too much" comes into play, Sally. Take it like a man...
‘Pinchazos’ enfrentan a detractores y defensores
REDACCIÓN DE LA PRENSA email@example.com
No se harán “pinchazos” de índole política. Así de tajantes fueron José Mulino, ministro de Gobierno y Justicia, y José Almengor, secretario de Seguridad, cuando se refirieron al proyecto de ley que aprobó el Gabinete, para rastrear datos de teléfonos –fijos y celulares– y de servidores de internet.
“Quítense los fantasmas de que estamos persiguiendo políticos. Esto es para perseguir el delito. Si el país quiere más seguridad, debe confiar en que estamos haciendo las cosas bien”, indicó Mulino.
Almengor, por su parte, señaló que no se “pinchará” el teléfono de nadie que no esté vinculado “a alguna actividad delictiva”.
Pero el constitucionalista Miguel A. Bernal dijo que la medida viola la intimidad de los ciudadanos.
La procuradora de la Nación, Ana Matilde Gómez, se mostró a favor de la iniciativa, aunque dijo desconocer aún el proyecto.
Dijo que entiende que lo que se busca es “ampliar la regulación de herramientas tecnológicas” que usa el crimen organizado y que superan las que utilizan las propias autoridades.