Re: legality of wiretapping: a "key" distinction

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

I have little more to say to Unicorn;

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

look, I'm proposing an exercise for the collective cpunk brain. I gain
absolutely nothing even if you do post every wiretap law ever written and
every case ever argued. I am not facing a wiretap prosecution. my job
has nothing to do with any of the above. it's an attempt to further
collective cpunk goals. why do you keep referring to "doing my work for
me?" Broiles refers to "my little project". excuse me?
my work is in software engineering and I guarantee I'd never ask
for your opinion or help in that area (g).   you guys are getting
to hyper about this totally informal discussion environment. this
is a DEBATE SOCIETY, nothing more.  absolutely nothing is at stake
here. you remind me of the saying, "the fights in academia are so
bitter precisely because so little is at stake".


>> I simply would like to carry on a discussion with
>> a civilized lawyer
>
>No such animal.

hee, hee. a lawyer joke from a lawyer. don't see that too often.

>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.

that's preposterous, I have never done such a thing. you might be again
mistaking me for Bell. I am not trying to drive any process here. I'm
proposing that people hunt for weaknesses in wiretap law. this is something
that would be highly beneficial to the cpunk "agenda". it has zero 
direct benefit to me, I assure you, and in fact I get a lot of trouble
for trying to positively impact the S/N on this list. can you try to
follow a simple recipe in the future? if you don't like something, 
don't say anything? I assure you that I tend to avoid subjects that
I get no response on.

>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.

classic cpunk anti-social attitude. here is a situation in which putting
everyone's brains together is far better than having one, and benefits 
everyone. you could have one person hunting through the stuff when others
have already tried. I'm proposing the equivalent of a brainstorming
session. but you are pissing on it before a single person has anything
to say. and yet you are a person who could contribute the most. do you
do the same thing where you work, piss on a brainstorm session before
it even gets started? saying the whole exercise is a waste of time?

>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."

so don't say anything. lack of response is not a tacit endorsement, 
something that has eluded you for a long time on this list. I assure
you your blood pressure will thank you, mr. bulging veins.

>> 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.

bzzzt. routinely major law enforcement sitations and status quos are
radically altered by new court decisions. the best example I can think
of here would be the Miranda rights.  this really radically changed
police procedures and it was a precedent that was not set by law, but
by court decision.

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

informal observation that many cpunks argue that wiretapping is 
inherently illegal based on constitutional aspects. I'm saying, perhaps
so, and maybe a supreme court would agree with you if you phrased your
objections in a novel way. of course, Clipper cases will probably
be appealed up to high courts at some point.

>> 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 don't think there was a rational decision behind it, something like
"lets go find the weakest spots in the law and challenge them in court,
and formulate a strategy" that I am suggesting. Bernstein introduced 
his case on his own without
any help from the EFF and they "piggybacked" on it. notice that wiretapping
is at the heart of Clipper and many other cpunk issues. if you could get
a new favorable decision on it, or even just a *case* out there, it's
fantastic publicity and good for public awareness.