Jon Swartz & Kevin Johnson wrote:
> COMMENT: What do you think of the government's plans?
> Justice is not asking the companies to keep the content of e-mails,
> spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said. It wants records such as lists of
> e-mail traffic and Web searches, he said.
> Roehrkasse said the government is required to seek proper legal
> authority, such as a subpoena, before obtaining the records. He said
> any change in the retention period would not alter that
> requirement. Law enforcement officials have seen investigations
> derailed "time and time again" because of a lack of data, Roehrkasse
Why would one need to trace somebody's web activity two years into the
past to prosecute child pornography?
If the government needs a witness to lie for a criminal prosecution, a
fishing expedition of internet activity going back two years might
Suppose a prosecutor is under pressure to pin a murder on a suspect.
An old trick would be to coach a little old lady to identify a former
associate of the suspect, then coerce him to testify. If the
prosecutor could find out that the associate was married to an illegal
alien, he could have the wife arrested and the child taken away to
force the innocent man to lie in court. (I saw that on TV.)
Information on an individual's internet activity could be useful for a
corporate or government official who wants power over that individual.
If the information were kept, I'll bet it could be accessed without a
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is a name for this kind of
activity: 'Prosecutorial Misconduct'. The Chicago Tribune did a five
part series on this subject in 1999 which led to the disbarment of
five or six attornies (who were prosecutors) in Chicago, two dozen
judges of the Cook County Circuit Court and in 2002, a one hundred
percent cleanout of Illinois 'Death Row' by the governor at the time
who frankly stated he had considerable doubt about the guilt of many
of the Death Row inmates. Needless to say, police were furious at
having this happen, and the prosecutors screamed rather loudly also.