Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eosp1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!robison From: robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) Newsgroups: net.tv Subject: Re: Satellites and legalities Message-ID: <1059@eosp1.UUCP> Date: Wed, 15-Aug-84 18:31:30 EDT Article-I.D.: eosp1.1059 Posted: Wed Aug 15 18:31:30 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 16-Aug-84 03:32:15 EDT Organization: Exxon Office Systems, Princeton, NJ Lines: 24 References: There certainly is a difference in what government officials and private citizens are allowed to do! This sort of thing is inevitable in a free country. There are probably a lot of cases in which government officials require court permission to eavesdrop. Private citizens do not require the same, but in many cases are prohibited from profiting by what they hear. A private citizen who overhears a conversation about a crime can thus report it to the police, and it may be admissible evidence (contrary to popular belief, many categories of hearsay are admissible). Similarly, certain kinds of evidence are inadmissible if obtained by Police without a seqrch warrant, but may be admissible if obtained by a private citizen in similar ways, if s/he is not working for the police. I believe that British laws are more restrictive about overhearing private conversations than American laws. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison