Jim Choate wrote:
>
> 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.
Maybe in Choate Prime. Here in this universe, A One Party State means
that if X people are involved in a particular conversation, only one of
them is required to know that the conversation is being recorded. In
most cases that one person is the one doing the recording.
In a Two Party, both members must be aware that they are being recorded.
This extends to an N party conversation where all participants must be
aware.
There is no such thing as a "third party" i.e. outsider in these cases.
What Aimee is trying to convey to you is that when people use electronic
means of communications: i.e. email, cell conversations, etc. an outsider
"third party" does not have the right to record said conversation.
That's what "it seems possible to have electronic communication that does
not imply third-party permission to record."
i.e. if you and I are communicating by email - private email, not
by posts to a mailing list, that a third party DOES NOT have explicit
permission to read our correspondances regardless of whether the state
is a one party or N-Party state because the "third party" (aka outsider)
is not part of the members of the conversation. (Let's ignore for the
momemnt that SMTP is sent in the clear and any dork with a sniffer
or with access to the mailspool of the machines involved can grab the
email)
Jim, I'm under no pretense that you will possibly comprehend this email
to you either, but recently, it's my impression that you're misinterpreting
or miscomprehending simple english. It seems you can't read a simple,
clear email from anyone without misunderstanding it. I'd urge you to
either get more sleep, so that you're better rested, lay off the booze
or whatever chemicals you may or may not be doing, or simply slow down
when reading emails. Failing those steps, seek some professional help,
as you've got some serious comprehension issues.
--
----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---------------------------
+ ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
\|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\
<--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/
/|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/
+ v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net ------------
