Re: Newt's phone calls

Michael Tighe SUN IMP <michael.tighe@Central.Sun.COM> wrote in article <5bjhda$f44@life.ai.mit.edu>...
> Alan Bostick writes:
> 
> >It is also possible that somewhere in the chain of information between
> >mom&pop, the media, and us, the distinction between "cordless phone"
> >and cellular phone.  I gather it was a conference call that was 
> >intercepted.  All it takes is one participant using a cordless phone in 
> >range of one scanner, and the whole conversation is compromised.
> 
> Yes, a conference call (and we do know there were multiple participants)
> over a cordless makes sense.

It was a conference call but over a cellular phone. Martin had hacked his
Radio Shack Scanner using a well known technique. He had a radio ham
license.

I still don't expect a conviction. Lets see a guy gets a tape he believes shows
that the Speaker of the house lied to the ethics committee. He hands it to
a senior member of the ethics committee of the house despite knowing that
in doing so he put himself at risk of prosecution.

Does anyone in their right mind expect any jury to convict in such a case?
Basically a trial would be open season for the defense to take pot shots
at Newt.

Q. "Why did you not hand the tape over to the chair of 
	the committee?
A. I thought they might try to suppers it.

Q. Why did you give the tape to MacDermott?
A. I thought it showed that the Speaker had acted illegally.

Q. Illegal? How?
A [at very great length to be repeated verbatim on CNN twice
	an hour]

As a first time offender the most the Martins could expect to suffer
would be a $5000 fine. They could easily recoup that on the chat
show circuit.

This is the country where Ollie North launched his political career
by subverting the constitution and lying to congress and where JO
Simpson murdered his wife and got away with it. Don't expect the
Martins to be occupying a jail cell any time soon. Newt on the other
hand...

		Phill

On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote:
> 
> It was a conference call but over a cellular phone. Martin had hacked his
> Radio Shack Scanner using a well known technique. He had a radio ham
> license.
> 
Phill
	Actually I'd love to see this go to court & have the law itself 
tossed out.  How many years have the airwaves been free?  Now it is 
illegal to listen on the cellular frequencies.

Sarah.

==============================================================================
Sarah L. Green          Hey, I never claimed to be                >>osprey<<
Madison, AL  (USA)        a genius  nor a typist           greens@hiwaay.net 
==============================================================================

Sarah L. Green wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > It was a conference call but over a cellular phone. Martin had hacked
> > his Radio Shack Scanner using a well known technique. He had a radio
> > ham license.

> Actually I'd love to see this go to court & have the law itself
> tossed out.  How many years have the airwaves been free?  Now it is
> illegal to listen on the cellular frequencies.

They're not gonna toss the law out, since the law doesn't really deal
with thought crimes, i.e., hearing something you're not supposed to
hear. The law allows them to prosecute people who deliberately monitor
to collect information which can be used against the people being
monitored, or to take advantage of them (steal trade secrets, etc.).

There's a presumption that the person about to be prosecuted has a
collection of information somewhere (on paper, on disk....) that they
otherwise could not possibly have gotten legally.

I've listened to judges describe something similar, in person - the
use of mailing lists by former employees, usually salespeople, where
the names/addresses and other info on the list might be proprietary.

Lawyers for scumbags love to sue over this one, since it's harder for
a judge to declare bad faith or a frivolous suit against the plaintiff
when the issue is unfair competition instigated by "theft" of a mailing
list.  The rule comes down to whether the info is generally available
legally, or whether it absolutely had to have been gotten illegally.