The technology is different.
I know the technology. Again, it's what the definition of "is" is. Wiretapping is generally used in conversation to mean any interception of your telephone conversations. The sections of the United States Code collectively known as "wiretapping laws" cover any such interception of verbal or electronic communications regardless of technicalities, and the include foreign communications. Meese tried to say it's not tapping on a technicality. Clinton still haunts us.
There is no legal term that automatically "covers" all such communication. because it cannot anticipate all invention. What are called loopholes simply exploit this fact of life.
posted on 01/13/2006 10:02:23 AM PST
YOU again! What's with you picking at this 'wiretapping' issue until Bush is equated with Clinton?
Do you have a special need here to debase Bush?
You could intercept the same calls with a scanner that is readily available at Radio Shack. Remember the Dem operative from Florida who intercepted a Newt Gingrich call and gave it to the media? Same technology.
The big difference is the limited range of such scanners, their inability to monitor all channels simultaneously, the absence of software to "hear" and understand keywords and then isolate and sort them. Regardless, the technology is similar and the legal issue is the same.
This is not Clintonesque parsing.
posted on 01/13/2006 10:47:24 AM PST
by Mind-numbed Robot
(Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson