Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: New assault on privacy

Tuesday, Feb. 16, 1999 | 11:50 a.m.

HERE THEY come again! The Nevada Legislature is in session and there's a new attack on what little privacy Nevadans still enjoy. This happens almost every session as the government lobbyists succeed in taking another bite out of our few privacy protections. Some bright legislators, who have caught them in this subversive activity in prior sessions, usually step up to water down the legislation or wisely stop it. Let's hope this happens with Senate Bill 120.

The Nevada District Attorneys' Association again wants to expand the Nevada law enforcement wiretap authority. This year it's under the guise of being just exactly the weapon needed to fight gang activity. Past sessions have foiled an expansion of wiretaps to protect us from stalkers and to protect gaming. Every session something is added to the list of activities they want included among the reasons a law enforcement agency can use to get a judge's approval for a wiretap.

SB120 now wants to add three new crimes to the list which already is made up of murder, robbery, extortion, bribery, kidnapping, destroying public property with explosives and sex offenses against children. Yes, SB120 wants to include attempted murder, battery with use of a deadly weapon and firing a weapon into or at a building that's occupied. All very serious crimes, but what's next on the wiretap list? Then in 2003 and 2005 they can add graffiti, cars without mufflers and writing mean letters to editors. Little by little, the list continues to grow.

I find no fault with the dedicated law enforcement people who fight crime 24 hours a day to protect us and our families. Actually they do an excellent job and it's doubtful that any one of them have any intent to abuse additional wiretap authority. It's the continual erosion of restrictions on the use of wiretaps that eventually leaves our personal privacy in the hands of future authorities who may not have our best interests in their hearts. Freedoms lost are most difficult, if not impossible, to win back.

Wisely, Clark County District Court judges have limited the approval of wiretaps and, according to what we have been told, only 10 wiretaps were granted in 1997 and all were for murder. What -- none for sex offenses, robbery, extortion, bribery, kidnapping or destroying public property with explosives? So maybe by expanding wiretap authority into attempted murder, battery with a deadly weapon and shooting at a house we can get more wiretaps to arrest people before they commit murder. How about wiretaps on taverns where known DUI offenders drink every night or buy a six-pack on the way home?

These attempts to add a new crime or possible crime to the list of causes to invade the privacy of Nevadans isn't new to legislators. If given their way, the use of legal wiretaps will include almost every aspect of our lives that give law enforcement people reason to suspect there might be a crime. It's this continual erosion of privacy that could be a greater threat to the average Nevadan than any single wiretap cause added to our state statutes.

Do you really believe that this continual expansion of wiretap authority will make a big difference in real crime? What has happened is the failure of past added powers making any big difference encourages wiretap advocates to say "but if we had these additional powers it would be different." Nonsense.

The thirst for additional power to invade your privacy appears to be unquenchable and every session they come to our legislators seeking another gulp of our precious freedoms. Certainly it's all done to "protect" us and their intentions may be pure. Sooner or later somebody has to tell them enough is enough because eventually wiretap authority will have swallowed at least one large and important segment of our privacy and there will be even fewer freedoms left to enjoy.

Have you spent an extended time period in a country where you knew that even your most private conversations were being listened to by unknown third parties? I have, several times, and long after returning to Nevada my telephone conversations and discussions in restaurants and even at home are limited to meaningless chatter until realizing that I am back home.

An example given for including shooting at occupied buildings to the list of wiretap crimes is in hope the police will hear gang members bragging over the phone about the shooting. Get real, pass the law and that will end any such conversations that a wiretap can reach. But the law will remain and will open up your telephone conversations with other people who are neighbors or relatives of, or work with, people who the police suspect "might" be criminals. How many government agency employees do you feel comfortable listening to your private conversations?