From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 19:16:34 +0800
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: legality of wiretapping: a "key" distinction
In-Reply-To: <199610072122.OAA21916@netcom22.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961008014523.26588D-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> [wiretaps]

Someone said:

> 
> >It's rarely quoted here because it is unremarkable; just as the list is not
> >a place for basic crypto education, it is not a place for basic legal
> >education. 

"Vlad" replied:

> ooops, you fell for Unicorn's muddying misstatement of my question. OBVIOUSLY
> there is lots of case law on wiretaps. what I was trying to point out
> was that I find little discussion of cases here trying to discredit
> wiretap law for various reasons, such as that the wiretapped
> person is not informed.

The sounds of the wheels spinning in reverse are suddenly very pronounced.

> the distinction of the person *not*being*informed*
> of the wiretap is very important as otehrs here agree, and I would
> expect everyone would be familiar with a simple case that gives a 
> decision on it (in much the way many constitutional cases are
> regularly quoted) or that people would advocate wiretap law would
> be challenged on the basis of the lack of such a precedent case.

There are several cases which refer directly to what you say.  Get off
your fat and go look them up yourself.
 
> >As Brian Davis and Uni have pointed out, people who keep current enough on
> >legal topics to be able to give you a good answer will probably want to get
> >paid for doing so. Saying "here's a legal argument that I made up in the
> >shower. what do you guys think of it?" and expecting a detailed explanation
> >of why it's good or bad is the same as saying "here's my new crypto
> >algorithm that I thought of in the shower, what do you guys think of it?". 
> 
> no, all I am asking for is lawyers who are familiar with wiretap law
> to make a quick case against it based on a commonly-known precedent
> within their field. if you don't want to answer, don't post. (Unicorn
> is free to flame his testicles off as usual.)

Stop asking and start paying lawyers to educate you.  Or sweat through
three years of hell in law school like the rest of us..

> >Go to a law library or larger general library and ask the librarian to show
> >you where the annotated copy of 18 USC 2510 is. Read the statute. Read the
> >legislative history. Read the annotations. Read the cases which were
> >annotated. Repeat this process until you reach 18 USC 2709 or die of boredom.
> 
> I will write on anything I damn well please and research it poorly or
> thoroughly as I like, and whisper questions to any lawyers out there who care
> to talk about the subject to an interested layman.

Go ahead, but don't complain when I flame my testicals off and call you a
lazy ass because above you have just admitted that you are one.  If you
want lawyers who are going to talk to laymen, try a few ABA dinners.  When
you have alienated each and every lawyer there, come back and beg here
again.

> >(The answer to most of the "how do I find out about 'X'?" questions
> 
> you have a lot of good advice, but I ask none of the things you are
> attributing to me. I simply would like to carry on a discussion with
> a civilized lawyer

No such animal.

> who specializes in the subject, rather than have
> a people tell me why I cannot even do this,

A [hypothetical] civilized lawyer will tell you tell you that you can't do
it as quickly as an uncivilized one.

> and must become a law
> specialized before I can even use the word "wiretap" with any 
> meaningfulness.

Though I can only speak with certainty of myself, I think many of the
legal types on the list are tired of typing pages and pages of things only
to have you bring up more innane arguments and demand more cases and so on
and so on.

Witness reputation capital, or debt, in action.

I don't think I would mind so much if a noted and credible source asked me
the same question.  With you I ask, what the hell for?  He can do his own
damn work and will probably post less if he is spending some time in the
library.  It is directly against my interests to make anything easier for
you.

Why when you use the word "wiretap" is it cause for me to get huffy?
Because you are below the level of capital where I will have any part of
supporting or contributing your "arguments."

> the chief point of my post was to question why the EFF etc. are not
> at all interested in challenging the wiretap "status quo" in spite
> of what many people here believe/advocate-- that wiretapping was
> never legitimate in the first place.

1>  The Status Quo is so entrenched and useful to law enforcement, that
the likes of EFF will never change it.

2>  "Many people here believe/advocate"  Where are the figures on this?

> this is curious because EFF
> etc. *are* willing to back up the cryptography cases out there,
> ala Bernstein etc.

Gee, might it be that cryptography cases are a new area of law where
limited resources are better applied because uncertainty in the law is
greater?  Duh.

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li