by Rick Collins JD
Collins, McDonald & Gann, P.C.Rick Collins' book, Legal Muscle, sets the new "gold standard" for sports drug reference manuals. It is the ultimate resource, covering all aspects of non-medical anabolic steroid use under American law. It's essential reading for natural and "juiced" athletes alike, and for coaches, sports trainers, physicians, journalists and anyone in the criminal justice system.
What if Government authorities develop an interest in you? What if
they focus on your online activities, and decide to develop a profile
on your habits and contacts? They seek to identify your associates through
the email addresses of those you’ve corresponded with.
One surveillance approach the Government has used in recent years has
been to apply pen registers and trap and trace devices to the Internet.
Pen registers are devices that capture the telephone numbers dialed
on outgoing calls; trap and trace devices capture the numbers on incoming
calls. These devices don’t disclose the contents of the communications,
or even whether the parties actually speak – just that one phone dialed
another phone. A list of every phone number dialed and the source of
every call received can establish a comprehensive profile of a suspect’s
contacts, affiliations and activities. Think about how useful these
devices are in the investigation of racketeering conspiracies: “Hey,
the target calls a number registered to ‘Jimmy Potts’ twice a day. Let’s
do some surveillance on this guy Jimmy and see what develops…”
It’s been estimated that federal law enforcement agencies conduct roughly
ten times as many pen/trap surveillances as they do “Title III” wiretaps
(the kind that allows them to listen to content, such as by bugging
rooms or eavesdropping on phone conversations). The beauty of pen/trap
surveillance to law enforcement is that, unlike wiretaps, they can be
obtained very easily. The Government simply has to certify to a judge
that the information likely to be obtained by the surveillance is relevant
to an ongoing criminal investigation – even if the target is not a suspect
in that investigation. By comparison, for the Government to get a Title
III wiretap, they have to meet the high standard of showing probable
cause to believe that the target committed one of a list of severe crimes.
So, pen/trap surveillance can help the Government fish around for evidence
against people it has no proof against. Also, the feds don’t need to
report their findings back to the court like they have to with traditional
wiretaps, so there’s little chance of oversight of potential abuses.
Before the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 [Oct.
26, 2001]), some judges were already authorizing the use of pen/trap
surveillance to capture the source and destination information for emails.
But the PATRIOT Act furthered things along by explicitly applying pen/trap
surveillance to the Internet by federal statute. While it does not permit
the feds to read any of the contents of the emails, including the subject
line, with a pen/trap order, it can be argued that pen/trap surveillance
on the Internet is more intrusive and personally revealing than on telephones
because email addresses are unique to individual users while many individuals
may share one telephone number. Further, there remain serious questions
in situations involving Web “addresses” and other URLs identifying particular
content.
The PATRIOT Act also diminishes online privacy by changing the law to
increase how much information the Government can get about Internet
users from their Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or others who handle
and store their online communications. It allows ISPs to voluntarily
turn over all “non-content” information to Government agencies without
a court order or subpoena. It also broadens the types of records that
the Government can seek with a subpoena and without a judge’s review.
All in all, while the PATRIOT Act may be terrific when applied to combat
terrorism, some of you may not like it in other contexts. For example,
if Congress passes the proposed amendments to the Anabolic Steroid Control
Act, will the suggested harsher treatment for steroids and prohormones
motivate the Government to monitor those they may suspect are conducting
transactions online? In the absence of comprehensive judicial oversight,
just how expansively might the Government apply this law?
Rick Collins, J.D., is a veteran lawyer and bodybuilder.
He is the founder of www.SteroidLaw.com
and the author of the groundbreaking blockbuster
LEGAL MUSCLE: Anabolics
in America [© Rick Collins, 2004. All rights reserved. For informational
purposes only, not to be construed as legal advice. This article was
previously published in
Muscular Development magazine.]
|