[Brakenshire]

> I know nothing of Brazilian law, but in America, criminals have rights, including the right to privacy.

I think your post rests on uncharitably interpreting what he means by absolute rights. Your post itself is a demonstration that the right to privacy is not absolute - if the criteria you describe are met, a wiretap can be permitted. He was talking about the fundamental question of whether or not a state has the right to set and apply those criteria (at least, within reasonable limits) within its borders.

[bmelton]

Possibly fair. I set out only to amend the sloppy use of 'criminal'. Many varieties of criminals in America still have rights that prevent mere allegation from allowing the infringement of those rights.

I am not a judge, nor a lawyer, but as someone who's been casually studying law for years, the thing I've noticed most about lawyers is that they tend to not speak in anywhere near such sweeping generalities, and felt it worth correcting as it would be unfortunate, and potentially dangerous if the wrong person were to take the word of a judge as canon and start enacting social justice against alleged criminals.

I deliberately avoided touching on the "no rights are absolute" statement because it is charged, and while it is grossly overused to the point of being tired, I was specifically trying to not open that particular can of worms. Also, any such discussion would possibly have furthered the gulf between "rights in Brazil" and "rights in America", which I can't begin to comment on intelligently, whereas "criminals are still entitled to due process" is a shorter bridge in either country.