>From - Sat Mar 02 00:57:16 2024
Received: by 10.220.100.206 with SMTP id z14mr133453vcn.7.1247801684666;
Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <ber..._at_netaxs.com>
Received: from newmx3.fast.net (newmx3.fast.net [209.92.1.33])
by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id 22si66329vwj.5.2009.07.16.20.34.44;
Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 209.92.1.33 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ber..._at_netaxs.com) client-ip=209.92.1.33;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 209.92.1.33 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ber..._at_netaxs.com) smtp.mail=ber..._at_netaxs.com
Received: (qmail 29071 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2009 03:34:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) ([216.48.8.17]) (envelope-sender <ber..._at_netaxs.com>)
by newmx3.fast.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
for <tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com>; 17 Jul 2009 03:34:43 -0000
Received: from 72-59-218-105.pools.spcsdns.net (72-59-218-105.pools.spcsdns.net [72.59.218.105])
by webmail.uslec.net (IMP) with HTTP
for <ber..._at_popcorn.netaxs.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:34:40 -0400
Message-ID: <1247801680.4a5ff150bb7b3_at_webmail.uslec.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:34:40 -0400
From: ed <ber..._at_netaxs.com>
To: TSCM-L2006_at_googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [TSCM-L] {3946} Re: Phone rule
References: <20090716221448.8E59C33C90_at_absinthe.tinho.net> <BLU149-DS197E2A6D443427B223FA08BC210_at_phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU149-DS197E2A6D443427B223FA08BC210_at_phx.gbl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1
Good question. As with all laws, they're selectively enforced and it depends on
the whims of the LE agency and govt attorney as to whether it's effectively a
crime or not.
I find Dan's comment interesting because one's plain-sight visual observation
is, in effect, the demodulation of an electromagnetic signal (if you believe the
wave theory for light.) But when you get down to lower frequencies (microwave,
UHF, VHF, etc) it can be a criminal offense to demodulate some "plain-sight"
electromagnetic signals in the clear.
As Dan noted, the law isn't necessarily a rational construct.
By the way, do those audio jacks on ATM keypads for sight-impaired people play
audio of the keypad entries? I've never plugged in an earphone to find out, but
if they do, that's a huge vulnerability. Someone could plug a disguised
miniature transmitter (designed to blend into the ATM panel design, like a
skimmer) into that jack and monitor PIN codes from nearby.
Talk about stealing from the blind...
Anyone on the list know the answer?
-ed
Quoting Its from Onion <areda..._at_msn.com>:
> would photographing someone entering in their PIN numbers
> in a public setting also be illegal?
>
> That's why bank security systems have no audio...
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: d..._at_geer.org<mailto:d..._at_geer.org>
> To: TSCM-..._at_googlegroups.com<mailto:TSCM-..._at_googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 5:14 PM
> Subject: [TSCM-L] {3945} Re: Phone rule
>
>
>
>
> While I do not expect the law to be a rational
> construct, I find it amusing that I can photograph
> you (standing in your yard) from the public street
> but I cannot listen to your clear-channel communications.
> Photos and radios use electromagnetic spectrum, etc.
>
> Probably off-topic...
>
> --dan
>
>
>
>
> >
>
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:16 CST