May 1st, 2003, 06:28 AM
New Hampshire House Bill 495
I know this has been beaten to death but I saw this article and it fired me up again.
Poor analogy. Better analogy: someone leaves their house unlocked, the doors open, plants signs on neighbors lawns for blocks around without their permission advertising such, and places obstacles in the roadway which people have to consciously circumvent to avoid being drawn directly into the living room.
By analogy, just because someone leaves his house unlocked doesn't mean you are authorized to walk inside, sit on the couch or help yourself to the contents of the fridge.
Let me see .... They say it is ( in my and most states I believe here in the US ) an offense under the law to intercept certain communications ( example satellite TV, etc. )
Even though they are broadcasting it into your house, you can not intercept it without their approval ( pay them ). It is also not legal to sell, manufacture, or possess any device which makes it capable to intercept these transmissions.
But in this case, these frequencies are open public airwaves available to everyone, and it is legal to sell the equipment to intercept them. Or would it be considered not legal to sell AND/OR manufacture 802.11b and the like equipment because of these laws??
I could be wrong, but I thought that most courts held that what you exposed to the public ( even attorneys who exposed client conversations to the public ) was no longer considered privileged and private.
By the time our legislators and courts get this straightened out they will probably have a decent and acceptable replacement available, not just proposed drafts. But how much damage and how many people will suffer in the interim?
Who is responsible for this the damage?
What do you think ?
Is New Hampshire's legislature correct?
House Bill 495 go far enough ??
" And maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be" --Miguel Cervantes