gbaji wrote:
I didn't select an answer because none of them "fit" IMO. The decision and legality of conducting a tap should not rest based on the individual(s) being tapped, but where the tap is occurring and whatever applicable restrictions/laws apply to that situation.
According to the article: "
The bugging of MPs by police has been barred since 1966. A principle was established by Harold Wilson's government, following a series of eavesdropping scandals, that conversations between constituents and their MPs should be confidential."
So according to law, if we accept this is an accurate description, the wiretap should've been removed for the MP's visit.
Should it be this way? I don't think so. Lawyers, spouses, shrinks and priests have the priviledge due to the need to be candid with them in relations. I don't see why MPs should be any different than barbers, or bartenders, etc.
Annabella wrote:
And, I think there is an advantage of privileged communication--it can be a free speech issue, i.e. a voter's right to communicate with their elected official without being scrutinized by intelligence agencies. It's interesting because in our context, we might think that elected officials are liars or we need to be secure because of terrorism--and therefore it needs to be bugged. But what about times when the government is violating people's rights and we communicate to our elected officials, which is their role, to represent our interests? What would it be like during any period of excessive scrutiny to feel as if you cannot communicate with an elected official without the oversight of government intelligence agencies? I think it would inhibit free expression and the ability of constituents to communicate with their official.
Well plenty of free-speech is quashed through bugging. First we have to assume the bug is legal; i.e. there's a reason law enforcement thinks a conversation is going to be about something fishy. I certainly don't support planting bugs 24/7 everywhere. But if we do assume there's a reason, a MP-consituent relationship isn't much different than a barber-patron.
Let's look at the prime subjects of dialogue between agents:
Likely to divulge personal culpability:
Lawyer-client: The criminal case in question
Priest-client: Sins which can be illegal
Shrink-patient: The life of the patient, as candid as possible to get treatment
Unlikely:
Barber-patron: Hair
MP-Constituent: General politics or law
Iffy:
Spouse-spouse: Anything
There shouldn't be an expectation of privacy/priviledge, because the prime dialogue isn't likely to rely on confession of personal business in order to work.