Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.bsd:12914 comp.os.386bsd.development:1411 comp.os.386bsd.bugs:1784 comp.os.386bsd.apps:655 comp.os.386bsd.questions:6726 comp.os.386bsd.misc:1463 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!crcnis1.unl.edu!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utah-morgan!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!u.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.bugs,comp.os.386bsd.apps,comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Evidence to the moderators conflict-of-interest Date: 10 Nov 1993 23:08:02 GMT Organization: Weber State University, Ogden, UT Lines: 46 Message-ID: <2brs8i$obt@u.cc.utah.edu> References: <jmonroyCG9v5u.K7D@netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.weber.edu In article <jmonroyCG9v5u.K7D@netcom.com> jmonroy@netcom.com (Jesus Monroy Jr) writes: [ ... message exceorpt without redistribution permission deleted ... ] > I'm afraid it does my friend. Laws concerning the > recording of a two-way conversatin are already in place. > > I.E. if you record a voice conversation with a second party > you must first notify them that your are doing so _or_ provide > a signal by which they will know that they are being recorded. > This law applies here. > > You were notified prior to the fact and you are now > obligated to the facts. This is true, as far as it goes; however, DISCLOSURE of said information AFTER said recording is covered, at least in the US, by the privacy act. There is also current legistation (introduced by Sen. Paul Simon) in regard to email monitoring. It is likely to pass (as of the last vote). Full text of the bill and its current status is available using xmosaic, which itself may be located using archie. Since you were the recipient, monitoring wouldn't apply to you directly, but to those you disclose to, even if you weren't violating the privacy act. Also, please not that notification laws are *local* laws, and in some jurisdictions, it is not legal to record conversations under *any* circumstances, and in others it is not required to notify the other party. If Chris or you are in a jurisdiction like the latter, you may have committed a felony (subject to that jurisdictions interpretation of if and how the lay applies to non-voice conversations). In any case, Chris has no legal nor contractual obligations, either de facto or de jure (expressed or implied) to do anything, period. As has been pointed out by others, there is no mechanism for *forcing* a moderator to quit, and, candidly, you have been less than successful in whipping up a peer-force mechanism as a replacement for an official mechanism. I have not seen one post that did not come from you that was disparaging to Chris about the job he has done. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the net... --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.