Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: hacker = computer criminal
Message-ID: <21534:Oct605:29:4690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 6 Oct 90 05:29:46 GMT
References: <69148@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <20225:Oct319:48:5690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <20959@well.sf.ca.us>
Organization: IR
Lines: 24

In article <20959@well.sf.ca.us> tenney@well.sf.ca.us (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:
> In article <20225:Oct319:48:5690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> >Sure, Stoll tapped a phone line---a phone line he was responsible for.
> >The corporation makes videotapes of a hall in its own building. What's
> >wrong with recording what goes on under your own roof?
> In California, it is illegal to record a telephone conversation
> unless a notification (that "beep" every x seconds) is made to
> (if I recall correctly) *both* parties of the conversation. 

As I said, I was just commenting on the ethical issues.

But are you sure about your legal statements? Wasn't there a Supreme
Court case a couple of years ago establishing that you didn't need the
beep? Reporters still beep you every fifteen seconds to be polite, and
smart answering machines do it because their manufacturers are behind
the times, but I think the law has finally caught up with common sense.

> This
> hasn't, to my knowledge, been tested with data calls.

There isn't, to my knowledge, any legal distinction between voice calls
and modem calls, despite what certain ``entities'' might make you think.

---Dan