Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!ptb@mitre-bedford.ARPA
From: ptb@mitre-bedford.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio
Subject: Re:  Satellite viewing \"freedoms\"
Message-ID: <1254@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 10:45:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1254
Posted: Thu Sep  5 10:45:18 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 04:38:53 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 16

>Not that I'm necessarily supporting this interpretation, but as
>I explained earlier the courts have been interpreting the word
>"benefit" rather broadly--that's the basis for the new restrictions.
>
>Also, most point-to-point transmissions are covered by various
>court interpretatons of the Act into "wiretapping" protection
>areas.
>
>Remember that the Act alone doesn't define the state of the law--
>the way the COURTS interpret that act and build up case law does.

Somewhere I have heard that if even a PART OF a transmission goes over
the phone lines, then tapping in has been construed as wiretapping.

					Peter, WA1SNH
					(ptb@mitre-bedford)