Government surveillance: Little peepers everywhere | The Economist
IN FEBRUARY 1928 the Supreme Court heard the case of Roy Olmstead, whose
conviction on bootlegging charges relied on evidence obtained by tapping
his phones. Olmstead contended that this violated the fourth amendment,
which protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures”. The court
disagreed: it held that the fourth amendment protected Olmstead’s person,
home and office, but that telephone wires “are not part of his house or
office any more than the highways along which they are stretched.”

http://econ.st/Oi1ZvB

Source: http://www.economist.com/node/21559331
See if people are clicking on this link: http://econ.st/Oi1ZvB+
Try the bitly.com sidebar to see who is talking about a page on the web:
http://bitly.com/pages/sidebar

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]