lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (08/09/84)
Actually, the "footprint" of a broadcast isn't the issue--the intended audience IS. For example, listening in on telephone conversations off of a communications satellite (even though the satellite has a very broad footprint) is considered, from a legal standpoint, to be wiretapping. --Lauren--
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (08/14/84)
[]
I seem to remember a discussion awhile back about someone who overheard
a dope deal made over a cordless phone and reported it to the police.
The consensus seemed to be that because the conversation was being
broadcast, it was not wiretapping to listen in. How is this different
from listening in to phone conversations "broadcast" from a satellite?
No question of intended reciever was allowed in the dope deal case.
Sounds to me like there's a different standard for the guys the government
likes and the guys the government doesn't like.
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!sa!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307lmaher@uokvax.UUCP (08/15/84)
#R:vortex:-37900:uokvax:6000013:000:767 uokvax!lmaher Aug 15 00:46:00 1984 /***** uokvax:net.tv / vortex!lauren / 6:40 am Aug 11, 1984 */ Actually, the "footprint" of a broadcast isn't the issue--the intended audience IS. For example, listening in on telephone conversations off of a communications satellite (even though the satellite has a very broad footprint) is considered, from a legal standpoint, to be wiretapping. --Lauren-- /* ---------- */ On the other hand, listening to someone's conversation over a cordless phone is NOT wiretapping. There was a legal case where a citizen overheard a drug deal being made over a neighbor's cordless phone, and informed the police. The judge ruled that the user of a cordless phone has no expectation of privacy, since he is broadcasting the conversation. Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!lmaher
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (08/16/84)
References: There certainly is a difference in what government officials and private citizens are allowed to do! This sort of thing is inevitable in a free country. There are probably a lot of cases in which government officials require court permission to eavesdrop. Private citizens do not require the same, but in many cases are prohibited from profiting by what they hear. A private citizen who overhears a conversation about a crime can thus report it to the police, and it may be admissible evidence (contrary to popular belief, many categories of hearsay are admissible). Similarly, certain kinds of evidence are inadmissible if obtained by Police without a seqrch warrant, but may be admissible if obtained by a private citizen in similar ways, if s/he is not working for the police. I believe that British laws are more restrictive about overhearing private conversations than American laws. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (08/17/84)
Sorry, but you can't even tell the police what you hear (unless there is some new law excluding it from the previous law). You are prohibited from divulging such communciations from any third party (whether you profit or not). -Ron
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (08/18/84)
I'll point out again that the cordless phone issue has only been tested in ONE court case in ONE state. The story isn't finished regarding the legalities of listening in on cordless phones. --Lauren--