Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrlnk!emdeng!lnewman From: lnewman@emdeng.Dayton.NCR.COM (Lee.A.Newman) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Computer Virus Hearings Message-ID: <757@emdeng.Dayton.NCR.COM> Date: 5 Jun 89 17:30:20 GMT References: <154@oldcolo.UUCP> <4246@ficc.uu.net> <513@atlas.tegra.UUCP> <729@corpane.UUCP> <21465@news.Think.COM> Reply-To: lnewman@emdeng.Dayton.NCR.COM (Lee.A.Newman) Organization: E&M Dayton, NCR Corporation, Dayton, Ohio Lines: 102 In article <21465@news.Think.COM> barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes: >In article <729@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >Re: Electronic Communication Privacy Act > >>Personally I think if they don't want people listening in on phones they should >>scramble the signal so you can't listen in. The burden should be on the phone >>manufacturers and the phone company, not the public. If the radio waves come >>into my house uninvited and unscrambled then I should have the right to listen >>to them. Laws shouldn't be passed to make listening illegal. That's working >>from the wrong end. It takes away from our freedom. > >Just because you CAN listen, doesn't mean that you have the right to >listen. If I leave my door unlocked that doesn't give you the right >to walk in uninvited. Incorrect. If my car breaks down outside your house, I have the right to come up to your house and talk to you. If you do not come to the door, I can take reasonable steps to find you. If I see your wallet on the table, or your chicken in its coop, I cannot take it. Do you see the difference? I'm not required to put a lock on my mailbox, >yet it is still illegal for someone to look at my mail. Exactly correct. One is a passive activity, and the other is active. If you consciously go onto my property (or the Post Offices's property) and look at my mail, you are violating a good law. If the Post Office sends you someone else's mail, and you open it without noticing the addressee, should you be put in jail? Obviously, no, because you took no action PURPOSELY on someone elses property. the phone >company isn't required to scramble their signals (some of which go >through microwave links, i.e. through the "public" air), yet it is >illegal to put on a wire tap. It is only illegal to attach an item to the phone which records. I can put a very sensitive microphone on my cassette deck, which is sensitive enough to record phone calls, and be perfectly legal (Note I am sidestepping the problem of placing the mike on someone else's property). > >The business of laws is to tell people that certain things that they >are capable of doing are not considered right. This statement is completely wrong. [No flame intended. Explanation follows] Many people, including an awful lot of politicians, feel the way you do. Unfortunately, such a misconception of the purpose of law is becoming so widespread that many other people are also beginning to beleive it. The following definition of law vs. moral should clear the air. Law: Minimum standard of behavior. Moral: Maximum standard of behavior. Think about that for a minute or two. Maybe a little bit longer. There are millions of things that are not right to do. Only a minute percentage of them are illegal to do. Do you really want someone to be able to put you in jail, or fine you, or take away your right to vote*, if you do something which THEY consider to be wrong? Think about that. How many laws do you disagree with? Intentionally >listening in on phone conversations is considered wrong, so why should >it be the burden of the users to scramble their data. You consider it to be wrong. I consider it to be wrong. But I do not want the government able to tell me which frequencies I can have a receiver. Think about that. Right now, it seems absurd to expect the FCC Police to come into your home and verify that your receiver cannot receive certain frequencies. Such a thought, however, does not seem to be too unreasonable 30, or 50 years from now. >>It just lulls them into thinking that just >>because it's illegal to listen in that no one will do it. [Stuff about scrambling signals deleted] > >>But what they really end up doing is >>limiting our freedoms. VERY WELL SAID > >I agree that it is a good idea for cellular phone companies to >scramble their signals. But I don't think anyone has a RIGHT to >listen to my phone conversation, scrambled or otherwise. Therefore, I >don't think phone companies should be REQUIRED to scramble their >signals. If you, or your phone company sends signals onto my property, I DO HAVE THE RIGHT to receive these signals. If you don't want me to receive them, do something to prevent me from receiving the signals. * My senator, Sen. Metzenbaum, beleives that no citizen of the United States should be able to own a gun. He has stated so repeatedly. He currently is proposing a bill which would require me to submit to an FBI background check, then let some Federal bureeaucrat decide, based on that check, if I can legally own a semiautomatic gun. Then I get to pay a $200 tax, and I have to ask permission every time I cross a state line with it. If I decide that this law is one I will not obey, I will be thrown in jail, without the protections of the criminal code (such a being presumed innocent ) as the law is written as a violation of civil code, rather than criminal code. Oh, I forgot... ANY PERSON FOUND GUILTY WILL LOSE HIS RIGHT TO VOTE FOREVER. This is the basis of why I beleive the way I do. Prevent your government from thinking that they need to look (or approve) your receiving equipment . ALL receiving equipment is legal and should remain so... forever. Lee Newman lnewman@emdeng.dayton.NCR.com