Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: "Joel B. Levin" Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues Message-ID: <10289@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 31 Jul 90 22:11:33 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 25 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 533, Message 6 of 11 >From: Gord Deinstadt >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. /JBL levin@bbn.com or +1-617-873-3463