nancylebov (nancylebov) wrote,

Warrants, and do politicians have privacy rights?

I've realized that I don't have a good feeling for what goes on in the process of getting a warrant for surveillance. Is a judge actually a neutral party? Or would a judge tend to have more sympathy for the folks who he or she deals with frequently and who can make arguments for what they want to do rather than for the people who the judge never meets and are in no position to argue against being surveilled? How many warrants are judges asked to sign off on? Is there a significant risk of the judge just getting bored and signing at least some of them without thinking? Do judges ever get into trouble for okaying too much surveillance? Do police and such do judge-shopping to find those who are more likely to ok warrants?

Even so, I can see that having any bureaucratic process will probably have some inhibiting effect, and at least it's a way of saying that unlimited surveillance isn't part of the culture.

I'm not denying that there are conscientious police and judges, but I have no idea what the proportions are. I expect that there are local cultural variations.

twistedchick said "It matters that anyone is spying on anyone. It is a rape of privacy." So I wonder, do politicians have privacy rights? I'm not just interested in their legal rights, which I think are pretty limited for public figures. Should politicians have privacy rights? No one seems to be embarrassed about, say, trying to find a politician's medical records.

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded