[Info-vax] OT: Microsoft got its hands on Skype for $ 8.5 billion

[Bob Koehler]

In article <CIOdnTj5Q64mTVTQnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d at giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88 at comcast.net> writes:
> 
> AFAIK the U.S. Constitution does not address the subject of "spying on 
> the citizens".  The USE of information generated by illegal acts by 
> government agents IS restricted.  If, for example, the government taps 
> your telephone without a warrant, the information gained, directly or 
> indirectly cannot be used as evidence against you.

   Amendment IV

   The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
   and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
   violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
   supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
   to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The courts have ruled that this means search without due process of the law
is illegal.  Due process can be the issue of a warrant by a court, as
mentioned above, or the passing of a law that specifically permits a
specific search.  All evidence gathered legally can be used against you,
whether a warrant was required or not.

Thus a law stating that the spys can conduct certain warrantless searches
is legitimate, and the searches themselves are not unconstitutional. 

But gathering of evidence with neither a specific law nor a warrant is
illegal, and the reason such evidence is not allowed in court is to
pressure the government not to conduct such illegal searches. 
Prosecuting governement employees who cross the line would be an alternative, 
but most likely much less effective way of preventing illegal seach.

It's hard to get a jury to convict a cop.  It's even harder if you allow
evidence that the cop was right about a criminal, even if the cop also did
something illegal.