Re: legality of wiretapping: a "key" distinction

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

(uhm, for the record, despite whatever appearances,
I am not on Jim-Bell-assassin-boy's side in any debate.)

>>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.
>
>Grandly ignoring the 5th amendment, I see?!?  I don't see any contradiction: 
> We can look to the Constitution, simultaneously, for rights for ourselves 
>AND for restrictions on government. 

all lawyers will tell you that the 5th amendment does not preclude you
"handing over evidence" under a warrant. it's a tricky aspect of law. "handing 
over evidence" makes sense with physical things, but courts/government
are struggling to figure out what it means in the information age.

>It's particularly pointless that some of these lawyers keep saying things 
>like, "You don't understand how the law works!"

my objection to Broiles/Unicorn is that they could simply post a few
cases and a summary of what wiretap law is about, esp. with their
legal background rather than flaming
my testicles off for not doing this myself. I agree with you that
people who shout, "you cannot even be allowed to TALK about such things
unless you go to the library, research at least five days, etc"-- I'm
sure that someone else has done this already, and I'm merely giving
an open invitation to them to discuss what they found. that's the beauty
of cyberspace, when it works right, everyone pitches in. you learn
from people who know more than you do, and they learn when you know
more than they do. no one's the authority or monopoly. in 
dysfunctional places such as this little rats-nest-hell-hole, you
get egotistical people, who perceive you are invading their turf without
beforehand displaying a sufficiently large "qualification", 
shouting at the top of their lungs that we should not
even discuss such a matter until everyone's credentials in the matter
are settled apriori.  (****size wars!!)

>It is a frequent conceit among "experts" that the only people who should be 
>able to criticize them are people who know as much as they do on a 
>particular subject.  Black Unicorn is particularly bad in this regard.

ok assassin boy, I hate to admit it but you have a great point there.
and its a big problem on this list. frankly I believe it has much more
to do with dueling egos than anything else. and the egos always have
been enormously bloated around here. why, it's a great opportunity for
someone to prick the bubbles. one can create quite a stir very easily
in a frothing anarchists-nest, speaking from experience <g>

>Ubiquitous crypto telephones make the government's use of wiretapping 
>irrelevant, totally without regard to what any cop or judge or prosecutor 
>says.  Fundamentally, it's a technical fix to a legal mistake.

another good example of how  a cpunk extremist ignores law when it
is not in his favor. law will always say that you have to hand
over evidence relevant to a case when compelled by warrant. whether
you can evade such a thing is irrelevant from the legal standpoint. and
what's orwellian about that?

there are two positions:

1. whatever is possible technically goes. if something cannot be
enforced, it should not be illegal. this position is fundamentally
anti-law. whoever uses it cannot legitimately wrap themselves in
constitution protections, because the constitution is the epitome
of law. the govt-assassins would essentially hold this side.

2. people in an orderly society follow laws not because they are compelled
to, but because they recognize that order is maintained through
compliance, and chaos ensues from noncompliance. they change bad
laws using mechanisms built-in within the system to do so.


the point is, either the law of the land is legitimate or not. if it is not
legitimate, you are advocating anarchy and have no business 
talking about the constitition etc.  if the law is legitimate, you
follow it regardless of whether enforcement is possible, but may work
within the system to change it, e.g. court challenges such as those
I've been advocating.