a reply to: BrokenCircles
I completely understand what you are saying, but that's not my point.
My point is...you said (not a direct quote) '...it would not be illegal to tap the phones because the phones were obtained illegally'. So, what
defines illegally? What is an illegal phone? If I buy a phone off some guy on the street, did I obtain that phone illegally? Where is that a law?
To the best of my knowledge, it isn't. So there must be something else about them which makes them illegal, right?
You argued it wasn't 'entrapment' because the phones were weren't legal. Again to my point; what defines legal?
Now, please don't think I'm just being contrary here; I'm not. I work in the communications industry, and I deal with cellular technology on a daily
basis. My question is a bit rhetorical, and here's why. I suspect the real issue here is not the phones themselves, but the technology being used on
the phones which makes them illegal. So I'll just put this out there to be clear. Now for the rest of the story.
The US and many other countries have laws about encryption, and basically what they boil down to in a nutshell is...any encryption the spooks can't
hack into is illegal. These laws aren't worded like that, obviously, but that's the net result of it. Many of these laws come with long sentences,
hefty fines and penalties even as extreme as execution in some cases. Yes, even here in the US; that's how serious they are about it! So, back to my
In order for a criminal to know a phone would be illegal he would:
a.) Have to know such laws exist
b.) Have to know what capability the phone has which is a breach of the law, and
c.) Procure the device with the above understanding(s).
So...how do they know the phone is illegal??
Are you starting to see the problem here now?