From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 20:04:45 -0800 (PST)
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: Newt's phone calls
In-Reply-To: <199701150427.UAA12861@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <32DDA52D.6BFF@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


jim bell wrote:
> At 12:02 PM 1/14/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:

> >Eavesdropping on cellphones is illegal, since there's an expectation of
> >privacy.

> I disagree.  Not that cellphone eavesdropping is illegal, it is; I disagree
> that the REASON it is illegal is some sort of expectation of privacy.
> And I also disagree that there is any expectation of privacy.  If anything,
> the opposite should be true:  Unless a person was (falsely) under the
> impression that the radio signals were encrypted (which, in itself, requires
> that a person be technologically-literate enough to be aware of the
> technical possibility that radio CAN BE encrypted, but also implies knowing that
> they might not be...) then the very fact that the signals go by radio would
> imply the possibility of reception by others with reasonably simple radios.

How's this for a classic example of why:

You're the heat.  You've been watching Bo and Jo, driving around at
night tuning in to the security cars who watch all the nice houses in
Brentwood.  You wanna nail these guys, since you know they pass on the
info (who's away, and where) they scanned to professional burglers.

So you get some evidence that they've been scanning security or
whatever, and you bust 'em.  How to present the evidence?  I don't
think it matters much after O.J.  Matter of fact, if the plaintiffs
win the civil trial, it should be a major boost for presenting bogus
and sloppy evidence like the Bo and Jo example.  Cross your fingers.