50 lines
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
50 lines
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|||
|
|
This file is from /\/\
|
|||
|
|
/ /\ \etronet BBS <-Actually, It sux.
|
|||
|
|
"The Intelligent phreaks choice"
|
|||
|
|
301-944-3023
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
***************************************
|
|||
|
|
* *
|
|||
|
|
* TELECOMMUNICATION LAWS #1 *
|
|||
|
|
* *
|
|||
|
|
* Written by - THE ANARCHIST *
|
|||
|
|
* *
|
|||
|
|
* Edited and Uploaded By Axis Assasin *
|
|||
|
|
* *
|
|||
|
|
***************************************
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
WIRETAPPING, ELECTRONIC EAVESDROPPING, AND THE USE OF SECRET AGENTS.........
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I. THE OLMSTEAD CASE
|
|||
|
|
IN OLMSTEAD VS. U.S., 277US438 (1928), THE POLICE INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATIONS
|
|||
|
|
BY PLACING A TAP ON DEFENDENT'S TELEPHONE LINE. IN A 5-4 DECISION,THE MAJORITY
|
|||
|
|
READ THE 4TH AMENDMENT LITERALLY, CONCLUDING THAT THE POLICE CONDUCT DID NOT
|
|||
|
|
CONSTITUTE A SEARCH AND SEIZURE. TWO REASONS WERE GIVEN: (1) AT NO TIME DID
|
|||
|
|
THE POLICE TRESPASS UPON THE DEFENDANT'S PROPERTY,SO NO "PLACE" WAS SEARCHED;
|
|||
|
|
AND (2) ONLY CONVERSATIONS WERE OBTAINED, SO NO "THINGS" WERE SEIZED.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
II. SECTION 605
|
|||
|
|
CONGRESS LATER ENACTED THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACTE OF 1934, WHICH PROVIDED
|
|||
|
|
IN SECTION 605: "[N]O PERSON NOT BEING AUTHORIZED BY THE SENDER SHALL
|
|||
|
|
INTERCEPT ANY COMMUNICATIONS AND DIVULGE OR PUBLISH THE EXISTANCE, CONTENTS,
|
|||
|
|
SUBSTANCE, OR MEANING OF SUCH CONVERSATION TO ANY PERSON." ON THE BASIS OF THIS
|
|||
|
|
LANGUAGE, IT WAS HELD THAT A PERSON WITH STANDING, I.E., A PARTY TO THE
|
|||
|
|
CONVERSATION, GOLDSTEIN VS. US, 316 US 114 (1942), COULD SUPPRESS IN A FEDERAL
|
|||
|
|
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY STATE OR FEDERAL OFFICERS, NARDONE VS. US,
|
|||
|
|
302 US 379 (1937), BY WIRETAPPING INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE COMMUNICATIONS,
|
|||
|
|
WEISS VS US, 308 US 321 (1939), UNLESS DONE WITH THE CONSENT OF ONE OF THE
|
|||
|
|
PARTIES TO THE CONVERSATION. RATHBUN VS US, 355 US 107 (1957) THE RULING THAT
|
|||
|
|
WIRETAP EVIDENCE GATHE RED BY STATE OFFICIALS WAS ADMISSABLE IN STATE
|
|||
|
|
PROSECUTION,SCHWARTZ VS TEXAS 344 US 199 (1952), WAS FINALLY OVERRULED IN LEE
|
|||
|
|
VS FLA. 392 US 378 (1957) WHERE THE COURT EMPHASIZED THE CONSTITUTIONAL
|
|||
|
|
EXTENTION OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IN MAPP VS OHIO, 367 US 643 (1961), AND THE
|
|||
|
|
LACK OF OTHER EFFECTIVE SANCTIONS FOR SECT. 605. LEE WAS DECIDED JUST TWO
|
|||
|
|
DAYS BEFORE THE CRIME CONTROL ACT (LATER ISSUE OF TELECOMMUNICATION LAWS)
|
|||
|
|
SUPERCEDED THE WIRETAPPING PROHIBITION OF SECT. 605.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The Anarchist Axis Assasin
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Call The Works BBS - 1600+ Textfiles! - [914]/238-8195 - 300/1200 - Always Open
|
|||
|
|
|