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.
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.....
> 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 --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
