From: "Robert" <RDHeffren@gnn.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 10:45:02 +0800
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Subject: Re: Is ths legal?.. (fwd)
Message-ID: <199512172313.SAA25145@mail-e1b.gnn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Sun, 17 Dec 1995 10:18:50 -0500 (EST) 
Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> writes:

> > On Sun, 17 Dec 1995, Jay Holovacs wrote:
> > Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) (18 U.S.C. ss 2510
> > et seq.).  "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an
> > operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a
> > provider of wire *or electronic* communication service, whose
> > facilities are used in the trans-mission of a wire communication,

> I disagree. Instead it implies that interception and administrative
> review of content will be tolerated where it is "a necessary
> incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the
> rights or property of the provider of that service."  Note that it
> will be the provider who makes the definition in the ex ante application.
> Even worse, the protection that is given is for "a provider of wire
> communication service to the public."

I also disagree because I would interpret it as "It shall not be 
unlawful...to intercept, disclose or use that communication...except 
by utilizing *service observing* or *random monitoring*." That indicates 
to me that specific monitoring is fine, but random monitoring must be 
used for quality control. And how do you become specific without being 
random? QC could be whatever the providers deem it to be, the public 
be damned.

"..anything not specifically allowed is expressly forbidden..."

RDHeffren@gnn.com
RobertH677@aol.com
id=0x95AA98CD