Re: legality of wiretapping: a "key" distinction

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>]

On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

I wasn't going to post on this thread again till I read this:

> of course lack or presence of a response to anything I or anyone
> else says here is a pretty meaningless metric. but I was speculating
> that there might be some weaknesses in wiretap laws because it didn't
> seem like there had been a huge amount of attention focused on them
> based on what I've seen on this list-- relative to the *enormous*
> attention focused on ITAR case law, software patents (esp. crypto), etc.

Wait, a lack of response on this is a meaningless metric, yet a lack of
response on this list is enough for you to make a judgement about the
nature of weaknesses in wiretap law?  Meaningless or meaningful?  Which is
it?

I think medication time passed without notice at the "Nuri" residence.


> I fully agree that Bell has some really fringe ideas about the law,
> but it was Unicorn who grouped me in with Bell.

Uh, where was this exactly?  I think it was you who grouped yourself in
with Bell and then attributed the idea to me.

> > I
> >think that it's interesting and good that people are working on their own
> >theories of law apart from the traditional institutional ones.
> 
> for the record, that's something Bell is doing that Unicorn mistakenly
> attributed to me. I'm advocating challenging the laws not via anarchy
> or technical means but using the built-in
> mechanism to do so-- the appeals process.

When did I attribute anything of the kind to you?  All I did was quote
your "new direction" in wiretap case law intrepretation which is neither
new, a direction worth going in, nor good legal intrepretation.

> sounds like something Bell would do. no, I'm looking for weaknesses in
> wiretap law such that a seasoned lawyer might mount an actual legal
> case in trying to appeal to the supreme court and get a favorable decision
> that rules wiretapping in certain kinds of situations  illegal.

And we seasoned lawyers, three of us last I counted, told you that you
were an idiot for suggesting it.  I guess we hurt your feelings because
you turned around and asked for a "civilized" lawyer.  (Read: one who will
listen to your ranting).  You wanted a legal opinion, you got more than
one. Now go away.

> >The EFF's failure to work on your little project seems like it might be
> >caused by:
> 
> excuse me, this is not "my little project". I take no ownership of
> it at all. I post to fire off the neurons of others.

Try using your own next time.

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li