Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men
At 08:57 PM 04/24/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: No, I don't have any responsibility to tell you when I'm recording or why. The best protection for bad speech is more speech, get your own recorder. I predict a new industry, mobile surveillance systems for cars. There will be a small CCD camera mounted on the passenger side with a wide-angle or perhaps split lens system via a itty bitty periscope. There will also be a microphone on the driver side window sill, as well as the middle bumper area. It will drive a small 12VDC recorder (initially tape, moving to solid state). Tape? How antique! Disk drives are much more reliable, big enough, and dirt cheap for the resolutions you'd need, and RAM may be good enough depending on your objectives. Voice recording takes 1-2 KBytes/sec, and Cu-Seeme quality video works over 28.8kbps modems, so 4KB/sec, though you'd be happier with 8. That gets you 20 seconds of voice+video per megabyte, so $50 of RAM (128MB) will handle 40 minutes, enough to tape a typical cop interaction or traffic accident. A $100 disk drive is about 40GB these days; that's about 5 days of 56kbps video. One advantage of equipment designed for cars as opposed to pockets is that you don't have to worry about battery life.
RE: Recording conversations and the laws of men
And if you're in a two-party state, unless you have a sign or tell the trooper that you're recording, you can wind up in jail. It's happened recently here in Massachusetts. Peter Trei -- From: Bill Stewart[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] At 08:57 PM 04/24/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: No, I don't have any responsibility to tell you when I'm recording or why. The best protection for bad speech is more speech, get your own recorder. I predict a new industry, mobile surveillance systems for cars. There will be a small CCD camera mounted on the passenger side with a wide-angle or perhaps split lens system via a itty bitty periscope. There will also be a microphone on the driver side window sill, as well as the middle bumper area. It will drive a small 12VDC recorder (initially tape, moving to solid state). Tape? How antique!
RE: Recording conversations and the laws of men
Peter wrote: And if you're in a two-party state, unless you have a sign or tell the trooper that you're recording, you can wind up in jail. It's happened recently here in Massachusetts. Details, citation, URL, please. S a n d y
Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men
I just don't understand how you can get in trouble for recording an adult doing their job... I believe it was stated that this happened on a public highway and the officer was a state employee.. Whats the difference in me doing it versus the media doing it? With this same thought Rodney King could have gotten in trouble for recording his own beating or even the bystander that taped it.. The courts have already upheld that employees can be taped and monitored at work so whats the difference in a citizen doing it. I believe I asked for the exact article that referred to this incident but I never got a reply... I could'nt find it on Google which was where I was originally told to find it... Jon - Original Message - From: Trei, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Bill Stewart' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 10:30 AM Subject: RE: Recording conversations and the laws of men And if you're in a two-party state, unless you have a sign or tell the trooper that you're recording, you can wind up in jail. It's happened recently here in Massachusetts. Peter Trei -- From: Bill Stewart[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] At 08:57 PM 04/24/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: No, I don't have any responsibility to tell you when I'm recording or why. The best protection for bad speech is more speech, get your own recorder. I predict a new industry, mobile surveillance systems for cars. There will be a small CCD camera mounted on the passenger side with a wide-angle or perhaps split lens system via a itty bitty periscope. There will also be a microphone on the driver side window sill, as well as the middle bumper area. It will drive a small 12VDC recorder (initially tape, moving to solid state). Tape? How antique!
RE: Recording conversations and the laws of men
-- From: Sandy Sandfort[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 12:30 PM To: Trei, Peter; 'Bill Stewart'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Recording conversations and the laws of men Peter wrote: And if you're in a two-party state, unless you have a sign or tell the trooper that you're recording, you can wind up in jail. It's happened recently here in Massachusetts. Details, citation, URL, please. S a n d y How many do you want? It looks like he's not behind bars, but got 6 months probation, a $500 fine, and a felony rap, for daring to record an officer on duty. The last post is the most complete, and is by a familiar name. Peter Trei - Here's the relevant state law for Massachusetts: [start quote] Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 , § 99 (1999): It is a crime to record any conversation, whether oral or wire, without the consent of all parties in Massachusetts. The penalty for violating the law is a fine of up to $10,000 and a jail sentence of up to five years. [end quote] (http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ is a useful resource) Similar laws exist in California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington. Try Googleing or Dejaing Micheal Hyde and porsche http://www.reason.com/9911/brickbats.html After being pulled over while driving in Abington, Massachusetts, Michael Hyde landed in court--on charges of wiretapping. Hyde thought he was being harassed because he had long hair and drove a fancy Porsche. The officers told Hyde his license plate wasn't properly illuminated and that his exhaust was too loud. The stop led to no traffic charges, but Hyde says he taped the police officer harassing him, asking if Hyde had drugs. And that's where the wiretap charge comes in. The police claim Hyde illegally violated the officer's privacy by taping the traffic stop. Police officers have the same rights as other citizens, said prosecutor Paul Dawley, adding that if the tables were turned and police were caught taping someone without permission, people would be outraged. That seems to ignore the fact that traffic stops are recorded all the time by videotapes mounted in police cruisers. The people stopped are rarely informed that they are being taped. http://www.interesting-people.org/199904/0043.html From: David P. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] [the URL for this was inadvertently left out... it is: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/107/metro/Motorist_s_tape_of_traffic_stop _lands_him_in_court+.shtml ] I thought I lived in a state that took the rights of citizens against abuse of police power seriously. In the following Boston Globe story, though, it appears that some police and D.A.'s will twist the laws as necessary to make sure that police actions are private and hidden from public scrutiny. David Brin - where are you when we need you? From the Boston Globe Online today: Motorist's tape of traffic stop lands him in court Wiretap charge in bid for misconduct (By Hermione Malone, Globe Correspondent) On Oct. 26, 1998, Michael Hyde got a familiar feeling. Driving his Porsche on Route 123 in Abington, he noticed a police officer looking at him from the entrance of a convenience store. - Deja'd from misc.legal.moderated: Excerpts from the _Globe_ story April 17 1999, before the trial: On Oct. 26, 1998, Michael Hyde got a familiar feeling. Driving his Porsche on Route 123 in Abington, he noticed a police officer looking at him from the entrance of a convenience store. Jokingly, Hyde turned to his friend in the car and said, ''Ever have that feeling that someone isn't going to leave you alone?'' A mile down the road, that officer, Michael Aziz, stopped Hyde's car, and what happened next, Hyde says, amounts to simple harassment, involving four officers, because he and his friend looked like drug dealers to the police. ''I was driving a Porsche 928, I'm in a band, have long hair, and my friend was wearing a leather coat, and somehow that added up to cocaine,'' he said, adding that one officer asked if he had any ''blow in the dash.'' That quote, he states, is on a tape of the encounter. Like an increasing number of motorists in the wake of the Rodney King confrontation with Los Angeles police, police say, Hyde taped the traffic stop. But this time, the police are fighting back. They indicted Hyde on a wiretapping statute, alleging that he illegally violated the officers' privacy. ''Police officers have the same rights as other citizens,'' insisted Plymouth County prosecutor Paul Dawley, stating that, if the tables were turned and a police officer were caught taping someone without permission, people would be outraged
Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men
Do Maryland state police also have video in their vehicles like you see in other states? How does this apply to their taping law? I work in the Fire Department on an Air Force base in Oklahoma.. Even though Oklahoma only requires one party knowing of the recording, standard procedure in the Air Force is to send a beep over the phone line every 15 seconds so that everyone knows its being recorded... We have about 30 phone lines in the dispatch room and while a few are specifically for emergency reporting we do receive emergency calls on all the lines so we record all of them. I personally believe any conversation should be allowed to be recorded by either party of any call... I once received a call from a woman at another base. It was completely job related.. She asked what those beeps were for and I told her. Well she got kind of irritated and wanted me to give her a call on a non-recorded line.. I said no if she did'nt want it recorded we had no business talking about it. Let me tell you that tape machine has saved us more times than I can count.. Other agencies on base like to blame the fire department if something doesn't happen like it should.. Usually information being passed is not sent and when the fingers start pointing I just invite everyone over to the station to listen to the digital recording and that shuts them up quick... Jon - Original Message - From: Trei, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Bill Stewart' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Sandy Sandfort' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 12:06 PM Subject: RE: Recording conversations and the laws of men -- From: Sandy Sandfort[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 12:30 PM To: Trei, Peter; 'Bill Stewart'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Recording conversations and the laws of men Peter wrote: And if you're in a two-party state, unless you have a sign or tell the trooper that you're recording, you can wind up in jail. It's happened recently here in Massachusetts. Details, citation, URL, please. S a n d y How many do you want? It looks like he's not behind bars, but got 6 months probation, a $500 fine, and a felony rap, for daring to record an officer on duty. The last post is the most complete, and is by a familiar name. Peter Trei - Here's the relevant state law for Massachusetts: [start quote] Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 , § 99 (1999): It is a crime to record any conversation, whether oral or wire, without the consent of all parties in Massachusetts. The penalty for violating the law is a fine of up to $10,000 and a jail sentence of up to five years. [end quote] (http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ is a useful resource) Similar laws exist in California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington. Try Googleing or Dejaing Micheal Hyde and porsche http://www.reason.com/9911/brickbats.html After being pulled over while driving in Abington, Massachusetts, Michael Hyde landed in court--on charges of wiretapping. Hyde thought he was being harassed because he had long hair and drove a fancy Porsche. The officers told Hyde his license plate wasn't properly illuminated and that his exhaust was too loud. The stop led to no traffic charges, but Hyde says he taped the police officer harassing him, asking if Hyde had drugs. And that's where the wiretap charge comes in. The police claim Hyde illegally violated the officer's privacy by taping the traffic stop. Police officers have the same rights as other citizens, said prosecutor Paul Dawley, adding that if the tables were turned and police were caught taping someone without permission, people would be outraged. That seems to ignore the fact that traffic stops are recorded all the time by videotapes mounted in police cruisers. The people stopped are rarely informed that they are being taped. http://www.interesting-people.org/199904/0043.html From: David P. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] [the URL for this was inadvertently left out... it is: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/107/metro/Motorist_s_tape_of_traffic_stop _lands_him_in_court+.shtml ] I thought I lived in a state that took the rights of citizens against abuse of police power seriously. In the following Boston Globe story, though, it appears that some police and D.A.'s will twist the laws as necessary to make sure that police actions are private and hidden from public scrutiny. David Brin - where are you when we need you? From the Boston Globe Online today: Motorist's tape of traffic stop lands him in court Wiretap charge in bid for misconduct (By Hermione Malone, Globe Correspondent) On Oct. 26, 1998, Michael Hyde got a familiar
Re: CDR: RE: Recording conversations and the laws of men
Police officers have the same rights as other citizens, said prosecutor Paul Dawley... Not in the performance of their duties, otherwise we truly have secret police. Not a good thing. I hope Hyde appeals; this is bad law. There is definitely existing case law (which I will try to find the cite for when I get home ;-) regarding this issue, at least in the State of New York. The case is from the late 70's or the early 80's, don't remember for sure, however, it stemmed from an arrest for violating the peace - of the police officer making the arrest! The court ruled that you cannot disturb the peace of a peace officer who is on duty and actively performing his/her official duties. While I don't recall whether this was ever escalated out of the State courts (and I can't off the ciff think of any reason why it could be, it still seems to me to be good law, and possibly useful as an argument in another circuit (assuming this is a first impression case where it is being heard). This is *really* bad law... S a n d y -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place...
Re: CDR: Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men
Jim Choate wrote: On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tim May wrote: Again, just so. The laws about tape-recording conversations have no basis in any moral theory I can support. If I choose to gargoyle Finaly an open and honest Tim May, he doesn't believe in self defence. I believe I can die happy now ;) No, you're being clueless again. I suspect that Tim is simply exerting his belief that if you wish to record everything you see and hear, i.e. gargoyle, you should be free to do so. i.e. he's being his usual anarchist self. Not anarchist in the media sense of bomb throwing insane clown terrorist, but rather, in the sense that one should only answer to ones-self and do as is fit. This is perfectly in line with what the entity known as Tim C. May has previously stated. Again, read carefully those three words that say If I chose to - it's a rhethorical proposition. It doesn't mean Tim goes around in gargoyle gear. It means he's stating his right to do so, IF he chooses. Those statements say NOTHING about whether or not the entity known as Tim C. May believes in self defense. Further more, recording or not recording has NOTHING to do with self defense of any kind. One may be recording everything in his suroundings to be used for his one self defense later on. For example, say Amadou Diallo, you know the immigrant that ate a 41 bullet lunch a while back at the hands of New York's finest, had a gargoyle suit on, it may have been used to incriminate his attackers. On the other hand, say there are cameras and other recorders in a police vehicle. They can be used for the self defense of New York's Finest when someone they arrest claim that they were beaten and abused. Provided the accuser was at all times in view of the cameras and WASN'T beaten, said gargoyle equipment would be used as self defense by the alleged attackers to prove their innocense. I chose to make this extra verbose so that this will sink in past the Choate Prime barriers between your ears: Gargoying or not does no imply self defense, nor offence. It's simply a tool like any other. Whether or not it causes privacy to be lost is simply a function of how it's used. And it still says nothing of Tim's beliefs. In Choate Prime YMMV. -- --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
Re: CDR: Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men
At 06:48 PM 4/25/01 -0400, Sunder wrote: David Honig wrote: Personally I plan to teach Jr. how to do covert recording; otherwise it might be his word vs. a schoolyard bully or state-employed bully. [FWIW, I think some girl was recently acquitted of wiretap charges for taping or imaging a teacher's lecture (for review later) because there was no expectation of privacy. Teachers are after all your employees.] A few months ago a guy was jailed because he audiotaped an abusive cop in MA. MA is an all-party state. So YMMV. The cop of course had no expectation of privacy since he stopped the guy on the highway. Google is your friend for details. I'd *love* to use a what have you got to hide argument with a state employee. On the other hand: Just read about a Sheriff's Deputy who was suspended for trying to erase 2 videotapes showing him abusing two different citizens. http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/20010426/t35233.html Deputy Is Accused of Trying to Erase Tapes Sheriff's Department veteran is charged with attempted destruction of evidence in two encounters caught on patrol car video. A decorated Orange County sheriff's deputy was suspended and criminally charged with trying to destroy videotapes of two on-duty confrontations, including one in which he reportedly accosted and cursed at a man. ...snip...
Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men
At 03:23 PM 4/24/01 -0500, Jon Beets wrote: Here in the state of Oklahoma, recording conversations is legal as long as one of the individuals in the conversation knows its being recorded. So a third party wanting to listen in without the other two knowing is still required to follow the standard legal proceedings... Jon Beets And if you record a chat with someone in Maryland, where both parties have to agree A federal crime, perhaps?
Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, David Honig wrote: So we instead force everyone to reveal that they are recording, in all cases then. That's the only way a 'mutual contract' can work, take away the 'right not to speak'. No Jim, what's *nice* about this is that it makes recording-restrictions a *Private Contractual* matter, not a *State Violence* matter. It's a private matter under this law, only the process whereby they must agree is proscribed. Nobody says they can't still have their discussion or record it. But if it's left as a totaly 'private' matter then each case must be handled seperately and a whole (costly) 'contract negotiation phase' must be gone through every time. Too complicated. Besides, without some 3rd party to 'notarize' the contract any party can renig at any time, say come back later and claim they didn't actually give permission. Surely you agree that one can enter into private contracts that constrain your freedom in ways beyond what the State can do. No, not really. Both are quite capable of constraining your freedom to the same degree of abuse. It's people doing it to people, whether you put a label of 'state' or 'private' on it doesn't really change the face of the problem one whit. If entered into without duress, and while mentally and legally competent, this is moral as no coercion is involved. Morality doesn't require one to abandon 'coercion', in fact 'morality' IS a form of 'coercion'. '...without duress', reminds me of a comment made on a TV cop show about capital punishment. Something along the lines of... The only way to commit capital punishment without cruel and unusual punishment is to tell the person you've forgiven them and are letting them go, and then shooting them in the back of the head. 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 --'-
Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, David Honig wrote: And if you record a chat with someone in Maryland, where both parties have to agree A federal crime, perhaps? No, silly. The person in Maryland can't make the recording w/o your permission, the person in Oklahoma can (without your knowledge). Each person is responsible to the laws where they reside (not the person they're talking to). 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 --'-
Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Jon Beets wrote: That does bring up an interesting point... What about IM programs like ICQ or even IRC programs like MIRC that have the built in ability to record discussions? In fact I believe ICQ's default setting is set to record... Then in two party states where a participant may reside they need to turn their IM proggie off. The real interesting question is what happens if the discussion is legaly recorded by a participant and then posted legally under that jurisdiction. Can the person from the Two Party state use the conversation then? 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 --'-
Re: CDR: Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men
David Honig wrote: Personally I plan to teach Jr. how to do covert recording; otherwise it might be his word vs. a schoolyard bully or state-employed bully. [FWIW, I think some girl was recently acquitted of wiretap charges for taping or imaging a teacher's lecture (for review later) because there was no expectation of privacy. Teachers are after all your employees.] A few months ago a guy was jailed because he audiotaped an abusive cop in MA. MA is an all-party state. So YMMV. The cop of course had no expectation of privacy since he stopped the guy on the highway. Google is your friend for details. -- --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
Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men
At 08:57 PM 4/24/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, David Honig wrote: At 11:05 AM 4/24/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: (Even contractual issues are amenable to this analysis. If Alice doesn't want to be taped in her interactions with Bob, she can negotiate an arrangement that he turns off his tape recorders in her presence. If he violates this contract, perhaps she can collect. Some day this will likely be done via polycentric law, a la Snow Crash.) Nice. So we instead force everyone to reveal that they are recording, in all cases then. That's the only way a 'mutual contract' can work, take away the 'right not to speak'. No Jim, what's *nice* about this is that it makes recording-restrictions a *Private Contractual* matter, not a *State Violence* matter. Surely you agree that one can enter into private contracts that constrain your freedom in ways beyond what the State can do. If entered into without duress, and while mentally and legally competent, this is moral as no coercion is involved.
Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men
Here in the state of Oklahoma, recording conversations is legal as long as one of the individuals in the conversation knows its being recorded. So a third party wanting to listen in without the other two knowing is still required to follow the standard legal proceedings... Jon Beets - Original Message - From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 1:05 PM Subject: Recording conversations and the laws of men At 10:27 AM -0700 4/24/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (commenting on Aimee's words) Just so. Regardless of no phone recording laws, people continue to do it. Linda Tripp got caught in this, and only because she publicized her taping of her phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky. Millions of other people do it everyday. Many modern phones and answering machines make it easier than ever.
RE: Recording conversations and the laws of men
I once looked this up: Here's the relevant state law for Massachusetts: [start quote] Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 , § 99 (1999): It is a crime to record any conversation, whether oral or wire, without the consent of all parties in Massachusetts. The penalty for violating the law is a fine of up to $10,000 and a jail sentence of up to five years. [end quote] (http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ is a useful resource) Similar laws exist in California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington. Peter Trei -- From: Jon Beets[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Reply To: Jon Beets Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 4:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men Here in the state of Oklahoma, recording conversations is legal as long as one of the individuals in the conversation knows its being recorded. So a third party wanting to listen in without the other two knowing is still required to follow the standard legal proceedings... Jon Beets
Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, David Honig wrote: At 11:05 AM 4/24/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: (Even contractual issues are amenable to this analysis. If Alice doesn't want to be taped in her interactions with Bob, she can negotiate an arrangement that he turns off his tape recorders in her presence. If he violates this contract, perhaps she can collect. Some day this will likely be done via polycentric law, a la Snow Crash.) Nice. So we instead force everyone to reveal that they are recording, in all cases then. That's the only way a 'mutual contract' can work, take away the 'right not to speak'. No, this view misses the 'rights of the individual' and instead goes for the other extreme, protecting 'society' from some imagined 'privacy invasion'. As if self-defence isn't as private as it gets. No, I don't have any responsibility to tell you when I'm recording or why. The best protection for bad speech is more speech, get your own recorder. I predict a new industry, mobile surveillance systems for cars. There will be a small CCD camera mounted on the passenger side with a wide-angle or perhaps split lens system via a itty bitty periscope. There will also be a microphone on the driver side window sill, as well as the middle bumper area. It will drive a small 12VDC recorder (initially tape, moving to solid state). 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 --'-
Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tim May wrote: Again, just so. The laws about tape-recording conversations have no basis in any moral theory I can support. If I choose to gargoyle Finaly an open and honest Tim May, he doesn't believe in self defence. I believe I can die happy now ;) 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 --'-
