Re: legality of wiretapping: a "key" distinction

["Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>]

>Also, there is an important difference between making a policy argument or
>expressing a preference, e.g.:
>
>"I like having a choice between disclosing information which is requested
>and suffering the penalties for contempt of court"
>
>and an argument about the constitution:
>
>"The constitution says I must be given a choice between disclosing and
>contempt." 
>
>I don't remember seeing any examples of the latter come across the list. As
>I remember things, the context of my statement above was a discussion of
>why third-party key escrow is not the same as self-escrow. 

the point is that many cpunks feel that  warrants and wiretaps and
subpoenas are things to defy. it's a hypocritical double standard
in which they cloth themselves in the wrapping of the constitution
or law whenever it is useful to their arguments, and then advocate criminality,
such as via defying legal warrants etc, whenever the case suits them.

[wiretaps]

>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. 

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 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.

>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.)

>Merely asking the question "Is there case law on wiretaps?" suggests that
>an answer which includes references will be wasted on you.

that's an absurd paraphrase of my post. I was focusing on case law
that had certain characteristics-- a simple case that challenged the
validity of wiretapping based on the fact that the participant is
not informed such as with other forms of retrieving evidence
utilized by the court.

>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.

>(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 who specializes in the subject, rather than have
a people tell me why I cannot even do this, and must become a law
specialized before I can even use the word "wiretap" with any 
meaningfulness.

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