Re: (Fwd) Re: wire tapping

Jim Hall (jfh4251@is.nyu.edu)
Mon, 20 May 1996 23:33:26 -0400


> In the case of some medium that has the recording option built in such
> as many IRC programs the law may become less clear, one might be able
> to argue that the parties involved were aware that the software had
> the capability as a built in component and that one could and should
> reasonably expect that text based information to be recorded.
> Therefore one may not be able to argue an unlawful wiretap has taken
> place. Although if I were the one doing the recording I would not want
> to bet my cookies on it.....

Your IRC example goes a long way to prove my line of thinking.

How is CU any different than IRC? If Cornell had originally made CU such
that at a click of a button all text (or video for that matter) was
recorded to disk, then that would be okay, but to add such a feature
after the fact is not? Especially since we know that the technological
capacity to do just that existed at the time of the software's inception!

This medium IS inherently recordable. And we should be prepared to accept
this fact with all its glorious and evil ramifications.