alright, let me try to rephrase this. if you feel the urge to flame me over a simple post, without actually posting anything substantial, please avoid it. I was trying to get at something in a previous post. I regularly see cpunks here scheming about how to attack things they don't like using court decisions. I think it's a great way to try to move the law in a favorable direction I see Bernstein/Junger as really embodying cpunk guerilla-like tactics in trying to take on the status quo govt using the legal system. of course this is not cheap, but EFF is helping out at least, and PRZ proves the public is generally willing to put its money where its mouth is on these issues. there's also a lot of scheming over patent laws going on among cylink, RSA data securities, etc. the point is that I don't recall seeing this same kind of scheming against wiretap rules here; if it was here then forgive me, I missed it. for anyone who would like to, I'd be very interested in a brief discussion over wiretap laws and which ones have gone to the supreme court in court challenges. here's my curiosity: if you were a lawyer, or actually are one, how would you go about challenging the legitimacy of wiretaps, in the same spirit in which ITAR is being challenged? note that even if there are court precedents at "lower" courts, this does not preclude strategizing to try to take the cases to the supreme court. I am not asking anyone to do my "homework" for me. I'm merely proposing that this might be a neat exercise for the collective cypherpunk brain. of course it won't get far if people rant about it, but merely discussing existing case law would make a good and interesting topic imho. if there are people out there who are familiar with it and would like to discuss it, and can stand Unicorn ranting at you no matter what you say, please do-- it would be signal in the noise around here. challenging these laws in the weak spots could be a very devastating means of defying law enforcement claims that they only want to "preserve the status quo" and want "no new authorities to wiretap". could wiretapping be "nipped in the bud" somehow? there is tremendous economic incentive for laywers to challenge things like patents etc, but this same incentive doesn't seem to exist in challenging wiretap rules. hence I wonder if they have been challenged to the same extent that other court decisions have been. of course, there are areas where wiretaps have been challenged and the challenges failed. but that doesn't mean there aren't weak spots that might exist somewhere that could "crack" it. it's like hacking, a bit, in this way, hence why I think it would make a good topic for discussion. or would the lawyers assert there are no weak spots in the wiretap laws? that the issue has been fleshed out as far as it will ever be in courts? again, what I am trying to suggest is that if there was a "new angle of attack" not used in any previous wiretap cases, it's highly relevant. again, merely because certain cases approved wiretapping does not necessarily mean all future decisions will support it.