(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.