carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (08/04/90)
In article <10289@accuvax.nwu.edu> levin@bbn.com (Joel B. Levin) writes: >>Some lawyers have argued that a cellular call *is* a broadcast >>transmission if the participants know that someone *might* be >>listening in. . . . >>[Moderator's Note: "Some lawyers" can argue whatever they like, but >>the catch is, was the transmission INTENDED for broadcast? . . . >>No intent? ... then no broadcast. No >>broadcast, then no right to repeat, acknowledge, 're-broadcast', >>profit from or print what was overheard. PT] >This is essentially true and has always been, as far as I know. The >controversial issues arise in the recent law (ECPA?) which seeks to >extend the idea of what is illegal; it is now apparently illegal >merely to _listen_ to such non-broadcast transmission, or to make or >sell equipment capable of doing so. I don't think all of these new >restrictions will hold up for long. I dream of the day when "some lawyer" with a decent understanding of technology will assert the right of property owners to capture and exploit any and all electromagnetic radiation entering their property, in any way they see fit. Note that this does not imply a right to jam, to reradiate, or to do anything which would result in unauthorized export of radiation to others' property. (That is, of course, without a license.) It's time for Americans to become conscious that anyone with a broadcasting license (including cellular owners, ham operators, CBers, and electric utilities) has effectively been given an easement for the propagation of his radiation across his neighbors' property. Such an easement is a limitation of his neighbors' rights not to have their property, bodies, and families irradiated. It is simply ludicrous for the law to define unencrypted broadcast in an arbitrarily selected band of the terrestrial spectrum as a secure channel. Such legislation is in effect a hindrance to the development and marketing of *real* secure communications technology (the existence of which I assert without proof, Martin Hellman and his colleagues notwithstanding). Then, after this guy gets ECPA overruled or repealed, he can bring a class action on behalf of everyone whose bodies and/or property are being irradiated by satellite broadcasts without their consent :^) Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com
roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (08/04/90)
> Some lawyers have argued that a cellular call *is* a broadcast transmission > if the participants know that someone *might* be listening in. . . . I heard a snippet on TV yesterday evening which, if I heard and understood it right, said that the IRS is now listening in on cellular calls, to gain evidence in tax evasion cases. Anybody know anything about this? Roy Smith Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
monty@tempone.central.sun.com (Monty Solomon) (08/14/90)
In article <10443@accuvax.nwu.edu> roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 541, Message 6 of 10 >I heard a snippet on TV yesterday evening which, if I heard >and understood it right, said that the IRS is now listening in on >cellular calls, to gain evidence in tax evasion cases. Anybody know >anything about this? Cordless, not cellular. Monty Solomon / <monty@sunne.east.sun.com> PO Box 45249 / Winter Hill, MA 02145-0003