On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:11:11 -0500, wrote:

Look,if you have the equipment to listen to anything,,, that is your
RIGHT to listen in.

No, you have the FREEDOM to listen in.

It's only a RIGHT if there are laws to back it up, such as a
Constitution or a Bill/Act of Parliament/Congress.

Do you understand the difference between a RIGHT and a FREEDOM?

--
Andrew Oakley andrew/atsymbol/aoakley/stop/com
Gloucestershire, UK

"Andrew Oakley" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:11:11 -0500, wrote:

Look,if you have the equipment to listen to anything,,, that is your
RIGHT to listen in.

No, you have the FREEDOM to listen in.

It's only a RIGHT if there are laws to back it up, such as a
Constitution or a Bill/Act of Parliament/Congress.

Do you understand the difference between a RIGHT and a FREEDOM?

--

Actually, rights are given by birth [God given], Freedom is the ability to
act upon those rights.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:11:31 GMT, Andrew Oakley
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:11:11 -0500, wrote:

Look,if you have the equipment to listen to anything,,, that is your
RIGHT to listen in.

No, you have the FREEDOM to listen in.

It's only a RIGHT if there are laws to back it up, such as a
Constitution or a Bill/Act of Parliament/Congress.

Do you understand the difference between a RIGHT and a FREEDOM?

There is none in a perfect world. That being said, ''freedom'' is a
relative concept. A right is something you are born with.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:50:44 +0900, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:



"Andrew Oakley" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:11:11 -0500, wrote:

Look,if you have the equipment to listen to anything,,, that is your
RIGHT to listen in.

No, you have the FREEDOM to listen in.

It's only a RIGHT if there are laws to back it up, such as a
Constitution or a Bill/Act of Parliament/Congress.

Do you understand the difference between a RIGHT and a FREEDOM?

--

Actually, rights are given by birth [God given], Freedom is the ability to
act upon those rights.

The concept of a God ''granting'' rights makes no sense.

My rights are inherent.

DaviD - " My rights are inherent. "

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:50:44 +0900, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:
"Andrew Oakley" wrote in message
news
It's only a RIGHT if there are laws to back it up, such as a
Constitution or a Bill/Act of Parliament/Congress.
Actually, rights are given by birth [God given], Freedom is the ability to
act upon those rights.

Ah, now I understand where I'm having trouble understanding this
conversation. Am I right in now thinking that Cuhilin and yourself see
this as a religious issue?

In the UK there is a theoretical seperation of church and state
(although strictly speaking the Church of England is part of the
government, and funded through taxes). Therefore the concept of any
right being "god-given" would be an abuse of politics, since it is
generally frowned upon to mix religion and democratic politics (we do
have a meritocratic parliamentary body called the House of Lords which
does include Church of England Bishops though).

Religion aside - is there actually a section in the US constitution
that states that a person has a LEGAL right to listen to any
transmission?

That's what I though Cuhilin was talking about, and that struck me as
odd; it would have all kinds of consequences regarding the
legalisation of hacking.

--
Andrew Oakley

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:03:08 -0500, "Stinger"
wrote:
wrote in message
...
Every American Citizen has the RIGHT to listen to ANY and ALL Electronic
Transmissions,Period!
Actually, you don't, cuhulin.

Newer radio scanners for the public are required by law not to be capable of
eavesdropping on cellular phone frequencies. Many states have outlawed
radar detectors (which, of course, do nothing but listen for an electronic
transmission).

Thank-you! That's what I was trying to determine. Looks like the US
laws are pretty much the same as the UK ones; you're only allowed to
listen to specifically designated bands.

So, the reality is: "Every American citizen SHOULD have the right to listen
to any and all electronic transmissions, period."

Maybe. Would have some pretty drastic implications on hacking and
privacy law until use of encryption becomes defacto.

--
Andrew Oakley

"Andrew Oakley" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:50:44 +0900, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:
"Andrew Oakley" wrote in message
news
It's only a RIGHT if there are laws to back it up, such as a
Constitution or a Bill/Act of Parliament/Congress.
Actually, rights are given by birth [God given], Freedom is the ability
to
act upon those rights.

Ah, now I understand where I'm having trouble understanding this
conversation. Am I right in now thinking that Cuhilin and yourself see
this as a religious issue?

In the UK there is a theoretical seperation of church and state
(although strictly speaking the Church of England is part of the
government, and funded through taxes). Therefore the concept of any
right being "god-given" would be an abuse of politics, since it is
generally frowned upon to mix religion and democratic politics (we do
have a meritocratic parliamentary body called the House of Lords which
does include Church of England Bishops though).

Religion aside - is there actually a section in the US constitution
that states that a person has a LEGAL right to listen to any
transmission?

That's what I though Cuhilin was talking about, and that struck me as
odd; it would have all kinds of consequences regarding the
legalisation of hacking.


I put the 'God given' in brackets because it's a common phrase used to
denote something that we are given as a birthright.

Whatever kinds of equipment you have that can pick up whatever kinds of
electronic transmission data,it is your Right and your FREEDOM to listen
in to whatever kinds of electronic transmission data.
cuhulin

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:47:58 +0900, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:


I put the 'God given' in brackets because it's a common phrase used to
denote something that we are given as a birthright.



The idea that a right to freedom needs to be granted by a ''supreme
being'' is oxymoronic.