Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions

[Black Unicorn]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim May" <tcmay at got.net>
To: <cypherpunks at lne.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 8:59 AM
Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions


> On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 10:24 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
> >       Interesting -- where did I get the idea that warrants for
> > "surreptitious entry" were only allowd for cases of national security. I
> > thought Reno was trying to get Congress to pass legalizing this, but was
> > turned down.
> >
>
> First off, there is nothing particularly special about bugging a
> computer for passwords. Keystroke capture programs and RF bugs have been
> out for many years. And sneaking into homes and businesses to plant
> audio and even video bugs has been happening for many years, sometimes
> with secret warrants, sometimes without. Bugging a computer is not
> legally any different than bugging a telephone line. (Though if the
> computer is used as a confessional, or for attorney-client
> communications...OTOH, these uses are possible with telephones and I
> haven't heard that phone bugging is illegal. According to my sources
> ("The Sopranos" 8-)), those doing the bugging are supposed to "not
> listen" except when putatively criminal acts are being discussed.
>
> But as long as we're back on the subject of surreptitious warrants and
> black bag jobs:
>
> I've wondered about two main things vis-a-vis these "black bag jobs"
> inside the U.S.:
>
> 1) Are the secret warrants always revealed eventually, regardless of
> whether a court case happens or the evidence is introduced? Is it
> possible that there are N never-revealed secret warrants for every
> warrant discussed in open testimony?

No.  Other examples: FISA actions, internally dropped IRS investigations etc.

> 2) What happens in these breaking-and-entering raids if the homeowner
> surprises the burglar and kills him? Is a homeowner supposed to somehow
> know that the person sneaking around his home has a secret warrant
> signed by a secret judge in a secret courtroom?

Technically speaking, if the homeowner is justified in using deadly force
otherwise (fear of imminent harm to life or property etc.) and in the absence
of a clear identification of the intruder as an officer, (verbal or otherwise)
contemporaneous street justice is the only thing that the homeowner needs to
fear.  (Note of course the requirement for "retreat to capacity" and such in
your state of residence and other use of deadly force ramifications).

> (Sandy and Black Unicorn will doubtless consider it "bellicose" to say
> that if I ever find a black-clad ninja rustling around in my house, I
> expect to treat him as I would treat any other such varmint.

I think you probably mean Mr. Sandfort.  I never took any position on that
issue or involved myself in the previous squabble that I believe you are
referring to.

> A double
> tap in the center of mass. Probably Black thinks "Mr. Happy Fun Court
> will not be amused.")

It's "Happy-fun-court" not "Mr. Happy Fun Court" and insofar as that's a
metaphor for circumstances technically legal but subjectively ugly, yes.  I
doubt anyone here will contend that the shooting of a police officer (even an
off duty police officer committing a felony) will be treated like any other
shooting incident.  Fair enough to say that shooting police officers- in
whatever circumstances- might be tantamount to "taunting Happy-fun-court."

> So much for the Fourth Amendment, which was designed to protect against
> precisely this kind of police and state snooping. When a scrap of paper,
> issued in secret, enables the king's men to wander through a house, the
> "secure in one's papers and possessions" right has become moot.

Agreed.

> The fact that judges now issues secret orders in secret hearings is not
> an excuse--I'm sure King George's men also had pieces of paper from the
> local rulers.
>
> On the bright side, I expect this will cause those who think they may be
> targets of such snooping and breaking-and-entering to beef up their
> security, to install video cameras (defeatable, but also countermeasures
> to these defeats, such as offsite storage, 802.11b transmission to
> hidden recorders, etc.), and to do more of their sensitive work with
> laptops which they carry with them at all times.
>
> (Today's 3-pound subnotebooks would be perfect, even for a
> style-conscious Mafia don. Or a PDA, for crypto. Lots of options. I'll
> leave it to Black Unicorn to explain to us that beefing up security is
> spoliation.)

Beefing up security in conjunction with the commission of a crime is certainly
taunting Happy-fun-court.  No different than the old "why use crypto if you
have nothing to hide" argument, just a different (denser) audience than usual.
The rest of your implication about my position is overreaching on your part.