Alan Shimel posted about my short blurb on the FCC getting a positive ruling on the issue of requiring broadband providers and IP telephone service providers to comply with US wiretap laws. Since he took issue with my post (dang him!), I felt the need to clarify. Here is my response to his post:
Alan,
I feel the need to clarify this blog post, and I was actually going to do so on my blog later today. I guess I will just copy this comment into my blog since you have forced me into action. 
I really meant this to be tongue-in-cheek, but I wrote it a little early, so I might not have been fully awake, so it obviously was not very effective.
If the government is going about this legally, if the courts uphold their position, and if the tap is justified, then I support it. I have posted that I have concerns that the government was not using warrants before (this is a change in my earlier position), and Martin McKeay and I had a discussion about that (should be in his podcast tomorrow).
Of course, many would argue that it is still not right to do it and civil disobedience is justified, but I don’t believe that in this case. Hope that clarifies my position.
I agree with Alan on this one. If the government goes about the tap legally and in full compliance with the law (warrants, the whole bit), then I have no issue with this ruling and the use of the law to catch the baddies.
I must point out that the InformationWeek article had a negative tone to it.
Vet
