Choate:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
>
> > First, the law can be used to the advantage of aforesaid 'technological
> > means,' often giving hints. For example, somewhat in the context of this
> > discussion, it seems possible to have electronic communication
> that does not
> > imply third-party permission to record.
Originally, in the mists of time....this conversation came up in the context
of third-parties being subject to subpoena, if I can think that far
back....yes, that was a screw up since I carried it over. Thank you.
Here is the case I had on my mind @ the time:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/opindisp.cfm?docid=193047MAJ
> What '3rd party'? Single party states require the person doing the
> recording to be a PARTICIPANT in the discussion, this implies that at
> least one other party is aware of their presence. Hardly '3rd' person.
> Two party states require ALL participants to agree, again no recognition
> of any '3rd party' right to record.
>
> How can a lawyer confuse this with a clear violation of the 4th with
> non-participatory '3rd party' recording? Hmmmmm.....
How can anybody confuse privacy statutes with the 4TH Amendment?
Hmmmmmmm....
> > Finally, the law has an impressive track record, in stark contrast to
> > 'crypto-anarchy.'
>
> To wit, of failure.
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> The solution lies in the heart of humankind.
>
> Chris Lawson
>
> The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
> Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
> -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
