Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!halley!bei
From: bei@halley.UUCP (Bob Izenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: hacker = computer criminal
Message-ID: <1029@halley.UUCP>
Date: 6 Oct 90 13:29:41 GMT
References: <69148@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <20225:Oct319:48:5690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <20959@well.sf.ca.us> <21534:Oct605:29:4690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Reply-To: bei@halley.UUCP (Bob Izenberg)
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Distribution: na
Organization: Tandem Computers, Austin, TX
Lines: 22

In article <21534:Oct605:29:4690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:

>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?

Circa 1982, the rule at the radio station where I worked was that identifying
yourself as an employee of the station was sufficient notice to record the
subsequent conversation.  It was deemed especially important to record the
reporter identifying his or herself.  That was eight years ago, and I'm No
Lawyer.
We had an FCC-approved beep box putting the tones on at one of the college
stations that I worked in... But it had an off switch.  Good psychological
effect here:  Start the tape, call someone, and if they object to being
recorded, the interviewer makes a decision.  Stop the tape, or stop the beep.
The choice that the budding journalism undergrads usually made is left to your
imagination.
-- Bob
-- 

                       Bob Izenberg [ ] Tandem Computers, Inc.
           cs.utexas.edu!halley!bei [ ] 512 244 8837