Argument: Common authorisation for wiretapping would result in misallocation of resources.

Wiretaps are not only unreliable, but incredibly expensive [1] [2] . Intelligence agents also often find themselves inadvertently listening in on ‘irrelevant, non-incriminating aspects of the target’s life’ [3] which not only breaches the privacy of innocent people but is an obvious waste of time and money for all involved. Given that many countries are considering or have cut their funding for police forces because of the recession [4] [5] [6] , this money could be put to a better use: preventing crime and terrorist activity by a stronger police presence.

[1] http://www.tscm.com/wiretaprobin.html , accessed 30/08/11

[2] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/03/fbis-500-millio/ , accessed 30/08/11

[3] http://cdt.org/wiretap/wiretap_overview.html , accessed 30/08/11

[4] In the UK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/aug/11/nick-clegg-police-funding-cuts-riots , accessed 30/08/11

[5] In the USA: http://www.businessinsider.com/newark-carjackings-2011-1 , accessed 30/08/11

[6] In New Zealand: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1104/S00010/cuts-to-police-budget-endanger-progress.htm , accessed 30/08/11

Candidate 1: "As criminals and terrorists adapt to modern times, so should the law. If the principles of law are responsible for a failure to act which ultimately leads to criminals walking free and crimes being repeatedly committed, then the law has failed to serve the society it was built for [1] . The principles of law are meant to uphold justice [2] , but in this case they become an obstacle to it. Considering that the law in countries like Britain has already acknowledged intercept evidence as a tool in specific cases [3] , it cannot oppose the underlying principle of intercept evidence – rather, the practicalities. This undermines the opposition’s argument that intercept evidence is fundamentally out of joint with legal practice. Problematic practicalities will be better regulated [4] [5] and monitored if this motion is granted, but until then we risk allowing crime to go unhindered because of an imaginary obligation to the past.

[1] http://sixthsense.osfc.ac.uk/citizenship/distinction_crim_civil/distinction_crim_civil.asp , accessed 30/08/11

[2] http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&amp;type=Document&amp;id=4054 , accessed 30/08/11

[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8437978/BT-and-Phorm-escape-prosecution-for-secret-wiretaps.html ,, accessed 30/08/11

[4] Regulations in American states: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jLnBeSbJiCUC&amp;pg=PA542&amp;lpg=PA542&amp;dq=regulation+of+wiretapping&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=rvb5mnIUm0&amp;sig=2vJFtD1c_ZN1F6P6FIfw-SuFmAs&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=Ru5cToXnI5DA8QPC0IjTAw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=5&amp;ved=0CCsQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&amp;q=regulation%20of%20wiretapping&amp;f=false , accessed 30/08/11

[5] Regulation of wiretapping in Australia: http://www.caslon.com.au/privacyguide3.htm , accessed 30/08/11"
Candidate 2: "More established forms of evidence – even those as sophisticated as DNA testing – also have their weaknesses. Following the death of British student Meredith Kercher, her supposed killer Amanda Knox was imprisoned after DNA evidence proved that Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the murder weapon (a kitchen knife) while Meredith’s blood was on the blade [1] . However, an appeal has declared that the DNA evidence ‘was so small it should have been considered “inadmissible”’ [2] , and the original forensic team have been branded as incompetent [3] . This is an example of an extremely high-profile case which hinged a conviction on the use of ‘reliable’ DNA evidence, and may potentially be proved wrong – the appeal is currently ongoing. There is no evidence which is utterly, 100% certain; it is always open to interpretation. However, allowing intercept evidence in court gives another chance at finding out the truth. Given that intercept evidence would work in combination with expert cross-examination, there is no proof that intercept evidence cannot be as effective as any other form of evidence – or perhaps even more so.

[1] http://news.sky.com/home/article/16040314 , accessed 30/08/11

[2] http://news.sky.com/home/article/16040314 , accessed 30/08/11

[3] http://news.sky.com/home/article/16040314 , accessed 30/08/11"
Candidate 3: "This argument is made irrelevant by the fact that the UK and other jurisdictions have rules of evidence which prevent the release of sensitive information from intelligence services [1] . There is no reason why playing a few minutes of recorded conversation in a courtroom automatically means that criminals and terrorists know the exact mechanisms used to record that information. Furthermore, if a trial is being held anyway, then the suspects involved already know that they have been monitored by intelligence services – otherwise they would not have been brought to trial. Similarly, high-risk terrorist cells already protect their communication by using things like encrypted messages [2] and disposable mobile phones [3] . Dangerous criminals and terrorists are already one step ahead of our current justice system; implementing this motion is the only way to have a genuine chance at apprehending them.

[1] The Official Secrets Act of 1989: https://www.sis.gov.uk/glossary.html , accessed 30/08/11

[2] http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2001-02-05-binladen.htm , accessed 30/08/11

[3] http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1499905 , accessed 30/08/11"
Candidate 4: "If wiretapping and intercept evidence can stop large-scale conspiracies [1] and potentially stop terrorist actions [2] , as it has done and has the potential to do, then price becomes irrelevant. The price of preventing perhaps hundred of people from being harmed in terrorist action should and will always outweigh a financial argument. Wiretapping could in fact lift the burden on over-stretched police forces as they do not have to physically apprehend criminals to attain evidence of their guilt. Wiretapping and intercept evidence is a step towards greater efficiency in our justice system.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/sep/08/ukcrime1 ,, accessed 30/08/11

[2] www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05249.pdf , accessed 30/08/11"

If wiretapping and intercept evidence can stop large-scale conspiracies [1] and potentially stop terrorist actions [2] , as it has done and has the potential to do, then price becomes irrelevant. The price of preventing perhaps hundred of people from being harmed in terrorist action should and will always outweigh a financial argument. Wiretapping could in fact lift the burden on over-stretched police forces as they do not have to physically apprehend criminals to attain evidence of their guilt. Wiretapping and intercept evidence is a step towards greater efficiency in our justice system.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/sep/08/ukcrime1 ,, accessed 30/08/11

[2] www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05249.pdf , accessed 30/08/11
