Xref: utzoo rec.radio.shortwave:7582 rec.radio.amateur.policy:442 rec.radio.cb:355 sci.electronics:20657 alt.activism:14503
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.cb,sci.electronics,alt.activism
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!kaufman
From: kaufman@neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Task Force recommends amending ECPA (long)
Message-ID: <1991Jun5.160706.24871@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
References: <25147@well.sf.ca.us> <2371@atlas.tegra.COM>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1991 16:07:06 GMT
Lines: 29

vail@tegra.COM (Johnathan Vail) writes:


>antenna@well.sf.ca.us writes:

-	[text of ECPA ammendments]

-    rh:  While I disagree with many parts of this report, at least
-    there is some recognition that receiver owners have rights, too,
-    and not just those who transmit.

>I didn't see any of that in the report.  What I saw was what looks
>like an attempt to protect the privacy of radio by passing more laws
>saying it is illegal to listen.  Then they go on to say that maybe
>they should also pass a law to force manufacturers to tell consumers
>that their equipment isn't private after all.  Then they finish by
>wishing that they had better technology to fix the problem in the
>first place.

Not quite.  What they said was that it is illegal for GOVERNMENT to use
the results of listening in a prosecution, if the government did not have
a court authorization.  This makes the conversation "private" in a legal
sense, if not in practice.  I think the question the amendments are trying
to address is: should the government have the RIGHT to listen (and use what
you say against you) just because they have the TECHNOLOGY to do so.
Remember, the government probably has the technology to listen to you even
if you encrypt against casual listeners.

Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu)