Re: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.

2001-08-02 Thread Jim Choate
On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Black Unicorn wrote: > It's a base conflict. A legal education is the ultimate dose of practical > cynicism. Hardly, it's a club where a bunch of self-appointed geniuses decide they can make better decisions for other people than those people can. > dislike for the state

Re: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.

2001-08-01 Thread Blanc
James A. Donald wrote: The basic problem with any legal incantation is that at some point you must explain to the authorities: "My actions were legal for this reason and that reason", explaining in inconveniently great detail what you are doing, and their response your complicated and highly inf

Re: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.

2001-08-01 Thread jamesd
-- On 31 Jul 2001, at 11:53, Black Unicorn wrote: > I wanted to make sure to correct the common misconception among > cypherpunks that you can just thumb your nose at a court with > impunity. And I would like to correct the common misconception spread by lawyers that there are magic legal f

Re: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.

2001-08-01 Thread Nomen Nescio
Black Unicorn wrote: > A legal education is the ultimate dose of practical cynicism. It > quickly becomes apparent not that the law isn't perfect, but that it > is often pretty damn screwed up. American jurisprudence is about > _fairness of process_, not justice, or right, or wrong. Come now, s

Re: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.

2001-07-31 Thread Blanc
>From Black Unicorn: >To me the important distinction is to recognize what we want the ideal to be, >but avoid running afoul of the law in the process. - If one does recognize what the ideal is to be, and it happens to be contrary to existing law, ho

Re: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.

2001-07-31 Thread Black Unicorn
- Original Message - From: "Trei, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Black Unicorn'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 7:53 AM Subject: RE: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong. &

RE: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.

2001-07-31 Thread Trei, Peter
Thanks for your response. The 'in his direct or indirect control' bit is the part that got lost in the article. I hope it was clear that I was not looking for ways to deny a court *access* to a piece of information, but rather using the net (prior to a subpoena) as an way to make *sequestr

RE: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.

2001-07-31 Thread Trei, Peter
Thanks for your response. The 'in his direct or indirect control' bit is the part that got lost in the article. I hope it was clear that I was not looking for ways to deny a court *access* to a piece of information, but rather using the net (prior to a subpoena) as an way to make *sequestrat