Re: Anti-monitoring law (Was Re: MARTI)

[mwaters@mail.wesleyan.edu (Martin J. Waters)]

>Mike Hemeon wrote:
>It may prevent all of the above, but lets say for example a person monitoring
>cell frequencies hears confidential information from stock brokers from the
>floor of the stock exchange, doesnt tell a soul and acts on it?

        Sure that happens. Without meaning to be flip: Laws covering almost
everything, whether it's speeding or robbery and murder, don't deter
everybody, either. But that does not by itself tell you whether the law is
good or bad.

        Actually, the posts about the monitoring of RPUs, STLs and such
being illegal now, technically, have slapped me in the face--forget what I
said about doubting whether I am fully opposed to these anti-listening
laws. What was I thinking? Hearing the confidential info. from brokers in a
restaurant or on the radio (i.e., cell phone) should be treated the same.
If they want it to be private, talk in private. And talking on the radio is
not private.

>It still amazes me that people don't realize that any piece of wireless
>equipment is nothing more than a radio transmitter or transceiver.

        That was the only true benefit of the anti-listening law: The
discussion leading to its enactment was amusing. I am afraid, sir, that you
live in a country of idiots who use cell phones and cordless phones and
then tell their members of Congress, "Gee, I didn't know I was talking on
the radio." I guess they thought it worked by "magic." Like millions don't
believe the earth revolves around the sun, and all those other foolish
findings the pollsters come up with. But, enough of that. Please excuse me.
I have to go now to talk to the crew of the UFO in my backyard and then
call my TV psychic.

------------------------------