Re: "Got a subpoena?"

[Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>]

On Sat, 2 Dec 1995, jim bell wrote:

> >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."

Because Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act which 
is codified, as amended, at 18 U.S.C. Section 2510 et seq.  Section 
2511(2)(a)(ii) states in part:  "Notwithstanding any other law, providers 
of wire or electronic communication service ... are authorized to provide 
information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by 
law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications ... if such 
provider ... has been provided with [a court order or a certification by 
an appropriate official that a court order isn't required ...].

> 
> 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.

Sorry.  

In subsection B of the the statute I quoted above, it states in 
part:  "No provider of wire or electronic communication service ... shall 
disclose the existence of any interception ... with respect to which the 
person has been furnished a court order or certification ... except as 
may be otherwise required by legal process and then only after prior 
notification to the Attorney General or ....  Any such disclosure shall 
render such person liable for the civil damages provided for in section 
2520.  No cause of action shall lie against in any court against any 
provider ... for providing information ... in accordance with the terms 
of a court order or certification under this chapter." 

Thus providing evidence of that one of the uses of lawyers is to [attempt 
to close loopholes.

EBD

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

Not a lawyer on the Net, although I play one in real life.
**********************************************************
Flame away! I get treated worse in person every day!!