Re: legality of wiretapping: a "key" distinction
At 02:22 PM 10/7/96 -0700, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
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.
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.
[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.
Now _THAT'S_ a very valid point. Unicorn totally ignored that issue. I pointed out my expectation that the only reason wiretaps are secret is their technical ability to do them while staying secret. I've occasionally pointed out that if tomorrow, scientists discover some sort of teleport system that allows cops to sneak through walls, at the same time being invisible, cops and judges will suddenly announce that the requirement that people searched need to be informed of that search is, uh, no longer applicable. This is a problem. No, not the precise hypothetical I imagined above; I don't think it's going to be possible as stated for a long time and probably never. The problem, however, is that "the authorities" have respect for the rights of the citizens more in the breach than in the observance, and if they find what they consider to be a good reason to ignore them, they will with little hesitation.
(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.
It's particularly pointless that some of these lawyers keep saying things like, "You don't understand how the law works!" when it is quite obvious that in most cases, the people who are complaining DO know enough about how the law works to identify when it is being abused. This is not surprising: For example, I can't ice-skate worth beans, but I easily tell the difference between a bad and a good ice-skater. I can't make music, but I can tell the difference between bad and good music. I don't know much about architecture, but if I see a building collapse I can see that somebody made a mistake. I don't act, but I can tell the different between a good and bad actor. 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.
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.
Probably mostly because they expect that the government is going to be completely unwilling to admit that it's wrong. In fact, of course, that's exactly why the government is very much afraid of the advent of good encryption: 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. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
(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.
participants (2)
-
jim bell -
Vladimir Z. Nuri