Forwarded From: blueskyat_private >Reply From: "Liam Colvin" <randomat_private> > >All variations of wiretap restrictions. If you aren't part of the >conversation, and don't have the knowledge and consent of any and all >parties, then it's illegal. If you are recording your conversation with >someone else, then it's *generally* legal. In the US, if a "conversation" (voice/data/whatever) is recorded, AND the "conversation" crossed state lines, USC applies. If the "conversation" was within the borders of the state, then state laws apply. Some states require all parties to be informed and give permission. Others only require one person to give permission. >Remote monitoring apps are only legal, and ethical for that matter, if the >party being monitored both knows and consents to the monitoring. That >functionality is incorporated into such products as SMS. See above answer >BO is by no means a *legitimate* tool for network administrators. It's a >hack. Pure and simple... BO can be used in a legal and ethical manner. See above answer. It does have the capability to be used in an illegal and unethical manner - as do ALL tools, hardware or software. More important, the crux here is whether it is designed to be primarily useful as a sureptitious device. I have testified in federal court about these matters. The courts are currently taking a dim view of anything that can be used surrepticiously. That means that ANY device (software or hardware) that can be _judged_ as "primarily useful for surrepticious monitoring" is illegal. Everyone should take a LONG look at ANY product they are using for remote monitoring. blueskyat_private -o- Subscribe: mail majordomoat_private with "subscribe isn". Today's ISN Sponsor: Repent Security Incorporated [www.repsec.com]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 13:01:54 PDT