At 10:07 AM 1/14/05 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
>It would take some chutzpa, but tacking onto a cops
>car would send a message
Too easy.
5 points for adding to cop's personal car
10 points for adding to cop's spouse's personal car
20 points for adding to cop's mistress' personal car
Not sure ab
Bill Stewart wrote:
> At 12:30 PM 1/12/2005, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
> >Just out of curiosity, if the man doesn't need a warrent
> >to place a surveilance device, shouldn't it be within your rights
> >to tamper with, disable or remove such a device if you discover one?
>
> Do you mean that if yo
At 12:30 PM 1/12/2005, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
Just out of curiosity, if the man doesn't need a warrent
to place a surveilance device, shouldn't it be within your rights
to tamper with, disable or remove such a device if you discover one?
Do you mean that if you discover an unsolicited gift of
con
At 09:01 PM 1/12/05 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
>It's time to blow the lid off this "no expectation of privacy in
>public places" argument that judges and law enforcement now spout out
>like demented parrots in so many situations.
A court refused to hear the case
Re: the embedded item:
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=322152
Ruling gives cops leeway with GPS
Decision allows use of vehicle tracking device without a warrant
By BRENDAN LYONS, Staff writer
First published: Tuesday, January 11, 2005
In a decision that could dramatically af
- Forwarded message from David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:46:47 -0500
To: Ip
Subject: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a
pig's eye!
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913
Reply-To:
--
On 24 Sep 2001, at 15:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's not a violation of US law for US agents to spy on
> people in Australia, but it's almost certainly a violation
> of Australian law. Similarly, it's probably not a
> violation of Australian law for Australian agents to
> eavsdrop
e Katz test is two-pronged: (1) the person challenging must
exhibit an expectation of privacy [subjective] and (2) that person must also
be justified in that expectation [objective]. If both prongs are not met,
the conversation is not protected under the constitution against warrantless
surveillance.
S
On 24 Sep 2001, at 17:49, Robert wrote:
> > Cal. Penal Code ' 631, 632 (Deering 1999): It is a crime
> > in California to intercept or eavesdrop upon any
> > confidential communication, including a telephone call or
> > wire communication, without the consent of all parties.
> >
>
> It is
> Anonymous[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> For the lawyers and lawyer larvae out there...
>
> In an article in the San Francisco Bay Guardian this week, there is an
> article about MUNI's policy of making audio recordings of passengers.
>
>
> Nathan Ballard of the City Attorney's Office told t
on Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 07:16:03AM +0200, Anonymous
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> For the lawyers and lawyer larvae out there...
>
> In an article in the San Francisco Bay Guardian this week, there is an
> article about MUNI's policy of making audio recordings of passengers.
>
>
> Nathan Ballard o
For the lawyers and lawyer larvae out there...
In an article in the San Francisco Bay Guardian this week, there is an
article about MUNI's policy of making audio recordings of passengers.
Nathan Ballard of the City Attorney's Office told the Bay Guardian that
they were well aware of the policy
12 matches
Mail list logo
