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.