Re: "Got a subpoena?"

[jimbell@pacifier.com (jim bell)]

>On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, sameer wrote:
>
>> > 
>> > What about a court order to (a) start comprehensive logging, and (b) not
>> > tell anyone under penalty of ______ .
>
>I am unaware of any authority for such an order.
>> 
>> 	Aren't court orders part of the public record? I don't quite
>
>Yes, but court orders can be sealed pending further order of the court.

Okay, maybe with your qualifications you can answer this.  It has always
mystified me why "the authorities" think they can engage in wiretapping
without informing the person wiretapped that this has occurred, despite the
fact that there was apparently never any precedent for this practice before
the "wiretap era."

In addition, I would like to be able to figure out a method to allow the
de-facto disclosure of such activities, and to in fact force the phone
company to do so, if they are asked to tap my or anyone else's phone.  It
occurred to me that even if there was a prohibition on explicitly revealing
that such a tap exists, it should be possible to require the telephone
company to certify that no tap exists, and to require that this
certification will be followed by an explicit and immediate de-certification
message the moment the phone company is unable to maintain such
certification.  The receipt of such a letter/fax/email will indicate that a
tap has been placed, despite the fact that it will not say so.


>EBD
>
>Not a lawyer on the Net, although I play one in real life.
>