Re: [TSCM-L] {1395} Re: White noise generator ?

From: <g.s..._at_voila.fr>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:22:57 +0100 (CET)

>From - Sat Mar 02 00:57:21 2024
Received: by 10.220.176.2 with SMTP id bc2mr71718vcb.11.1282241647890;
        Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: tscm-l2006_at_googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.220.111.137 with SMTP id s9ls365719vcp.1.p; Thu, 19 Aug 2010
 11:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.190.71 with SMTP id dh7mr64785vcb.26.1282241643193;
        Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.190.71 with SMTP id dh7mr64784vcb.26.1282241643143;
        Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <ber..._at_netaxs.com>
Received: from webmail1.paetec.net (webmail1.paetec.net [209.92.1.171])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id m6si240107vbr.3.2010.08.19.11.14.02;
        Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 209.92.1.171 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ber..._at_netaxs.com) client-ip 9.92.1.171;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 209.92.1.171 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ber..._at_netaxs.com) smtp.mailūr..._at_netaxs.com
Received: from webmail1.paetec.net (webmail1 [127.0.0.1])
        by webmail1.paetec.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7JIE2tW017828
        for <tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:14:02 -0400
Received: (from apache_at_localhost)
        by webmail1.paetec.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id o7JIE2ud017827
        for tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:14:02 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: webmail1.paetec.net: apache set sender to ber..._at_netaxs.com using -f
Received: from 184-77-177-50.par.clearwire-wmx.net
 (184-77-177-50.par.clearwire-wmx.net [184.77.177.50]) by webmail.uslec.net
 (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:14:02 -0400
Message-ID: <20100819141402.26061x9bphgd4cck_at_webmail.uslec.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:14:02 -0400
From: "ber..._at_netaxs.com" <ber..._at_netaxs.com>
To: tscm-l2006_at_googlegroups.com
Subject: Federal Appeals Court affirms telephone audio recording is okay
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=ISO-8859-1;
 DelSp="Yes";
 format="flowed"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.3.4)


http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/covert-iphone-audio-recording/#ixz=
z0x4nteZqO

Court OKs Covert iPhone Audio Recording

     * By David Kravets Email Author
     * August 18, 2010 4:37 pm

Using an iPhone to secretly record a conversation is not a violation
of the Wiretap Act if done for legitimate purposes, a federal appeals
court has ruled.

?The defendant must have the intent to use the illicit recording to
commit a tort of crime beyond the act of recording itself,? (.pdf) the
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

Friday?s decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which
involves a civil lawsuit over a secret audio recording produced from
the 99-cent Recorder app, mirrors decisions in at least three other
federal appeals courts.

The lawsuit concerns a family dispute over the making of a dying
mother?s will. Days before the Connecticut woman died, her son
secretly recorded a kitchen conversation between the son, mother,
stepfather and others over how to handle her estate after her death.

The son, in a probate dispute, turned over the audio file to the court
in 2008 to bolster his position concerning the estate of his late
mother, who died without a will. The stepfather sued him, alleging a
privacy breach under the Wiretap Act. A federal judge dismissed the
case, and the stepfather appealed.

The appeals court ruled that, even if the son consented to his own
taping, he could be sued for money damages for a breach of the Wiretap
Act if and only if he did so with a nefarious intent.

?We affirm, and, in so doing, hold that the exception to the one-party
consent provision of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) requires that a
communication be intercepted for the purpose of a tortious or criminal
act that is independent of the intentional act of recording,? the New
York-based federal appeals court said.

Photo: Apple App Store

Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:21 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Mar 02 2024 - 01:11:44 CST