From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 13:12:34 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: challenging wiretap law
Message-ID: <199610080136.SAA15855@netcom21.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



alright, let me try to rephrase this.  if you feel the urge
to flame me over a simple post, without actually posting
anything substantial, please avoid it.

I was trying to get at something in a previous post. I
regularly see cpunks here scheming about how to attack
things they don't like using court decisions. I think it's
a great way to try to move the law in a favorable direction 
I see Bernstein/Junger as really embodying cpunk guerilla-like
tactics in trying to take on the status quo govt using the
legal system. of course this is not cheap, but EFF is helping
out at least, and PRZ proves the public is generally willing to put
its money where its mouth is on these issues. there's also a lot
of scheming over patent laws going on among cylink, RSA data
securities, etc.

the point is that I don't recall seeing this same kind of scheming
against wiretap rules here; if it was here then forgive me, I missed
it. for anyone who would like to, I'd be
very interested in a brief discussion over wiretap laws
and which ones have gone to the supreme court in court 
challenges.  here's my curiosity: if you were a lawyer, or 
actually are one, how would you go about challenging the
legitimacy of wiretaps, in the same spirit in which ITAR
is being challenged? note that even if there are court
precedents at "lower" courts, this does not preclude strategizing
to try to take the cases to the supreme court.

I am not asking anyone to do my "homework" for me. I'm merely
proposing that this might be a neat exercise for the collective
cypherpunk brain. of course it won't get far if people rant about
it, but merely discussing existing case law would make a good
and interesting topic imho.  if there are people out there who
are familiar with it and would like to discuss it, and can stand
Unicorn ranting at you no matter what you say, please do-- 
it would be signal in the noise around here.

challenging these laws in the weak spots
could be a very devastating means of 
defying law enforcement claims that they only want to "preserve
the status quo" and want "no new authorities to wiretap". could
wiretapping be "nipped in the bud" somehow? there is tremendous
economic incentive for laywers to challenge things like patents
etc, but this same incentive doesn't seem to exist in challenging
wiretap rules. hence I wonder if they have been challenged to the
same extent that  other court decisions have been.

of course,
there are areas where wiretaps have been challenged and the challenges
failed. but that doesn't mean there aren't weak spots that might
exist somewhere that could "crack" it. it's like hacking, a bit, in
this way, hence why I think it would make a good topic for
discussion.

or would the lawyers assert there are no weak spots in the wiretap
laws? that the issue has been fleshed out as far as it will ever
be in courts? again, what I am trying to suggest is that if there
was a "new angle of attack" not used in any previous wiretap cases,
it's highly relevant. again, merely because certain cases approved
wiretapping does not necessarily mean all future decisions will
support it.