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