Re: legality of wiretapping: a "key" distinction

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

Unicorn writes:

[challenging wiretap laws]
>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.

look, I was not going to rub this in your face at all, but you don't
seem to have a clue about this. the fact that you/others here can't 
scrounge enough imagination to come up with an attack against wiretap laws 
based on case law and think such a think is a waste of time
is pretty meaningless in your case. I don't think
you have an imaginative bone in your body, hence the great vitriol
that you unleash upon me whenever I use my own.

from the article just recently posted:

>
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/examiner/article.cgi?year=1996&month=10&day=06&art
>icle=BUSINESS2814.dtl
>
>Encryption controversy pits life against liberty

>"Wiretapping is the main issue," said Stewart Baker, former general counsel
>of the National Security Agency, the CIA's code-breaking and eavesdroping
>cousin.

as TCM just pointed out, this is a departure on the part of the administration
in describing the tactics of clipper. clearly, WIRETAPPING AUTHORITY IS
KEY TO CLIPPER LEGITIMACY. hence a legal challenge to wiretapping is an
extremely critical angle to the situation.

>
>"If two criminals are discussing a plot over the telephone and we have a
>wiretap order, the encryption would negate the wiretap," said Michael
>Vatis, a senior Department of Justice official.
>
...

>"For serious investigations involving terrorists or organized crime . . .
>where you're worried about hundreds of people being killed . . . the whole
>point is to keep the investigation secret or the whole thing blows up," he
>said.

as I just recently wrote, it seems to me one of the key points of discussion
that is just now emerging in this debate is the demand by the gov't
that wiretapping be done IN SECRET without knowledge of the suspect,
whereas civil libertarians seem to be challenging this point in particular.
it could be a magic bullet it defeating wiretapping. it seems to really
get to the core of the debate about key escrow etc.

>Not so, argued Daniel Weitzner, an attorney with the civil libertarian
>Center for Democracy and Technology inWashington, D.C. Forgetting
>encryption for a moment, Weitzner said, a wiretap is unlike any other tool
>in the
>investigator's arsenal.
>
>"To get documents sitting on my computer, the FBI has to come into my
>office with a search warrant," Weitzner said. "I have to know about it."

the same distinction again. very interesting.  I was just emphasizing
that in my post.

>
>Exactly the reverse is true for a wiretap. To be effective, the subject
>must be ignorant of the tap. Weitzner said this
>notion of a "secret search" went against a central principle of the Fourth
>Amendment, which protects people from
>unreasonable search and seizure.

whoa, apparently this would be news to Unicorn, who thinks it would be
a waste of time to argue against the established legitimacy of wiretapping
and considers himself a premiere lawyer-dude.  well, I'll just let Unicorn
argue with Weitzner, (whose credentials are rather impressive and I 
trust more, btw..)  I'd be interested to hear what Weitzner says, 
Uni...

so what we have here is a very knowledgeable lawyer who has helped
out EFF argue that wiretaps are unconstitutional based on the precise
aspect that I was focusing on in a post that Unicorn flamed me for:
that they are secret, unknown to the suspect,
and that this thereby might constitute an "unreasonable"
search and seizure. I don't claim to have originated this of course, but
I was emphasizing it in my post, and Unicorn objected.

reading what Weitzner wrote, it is not inconceivable to imagine
him having the position that wiretaps in their present form might
not survive a court challenge, i.e. it would at least not be
a waste of time to mount such a case, as Unicorn belligerently
bellows above is obvious to anyone with a smidgeon of legal
background..