Quote:
Originally Posted by ab3a
Yes, but the term leads to some very erroneous misconceptions. It is one thing to "intercept" communications on a land-line. That usually involves a physical connection to the media. But to do so with a radio signal?
Oh well, score another one for the ignorant lawyers and intelligence agencies who make up such horrible abuses of the language.
|
In most litigation, there's a lawyer on each side and most people think that the one on their side isn't ignorant--just the one on the other side. And even the one on the other side may not turn out to be so ignorant when the dust settles and he's/she's kicked your butt.
In your prior post, you indicate that intercept means to "catch it and that it will never get to its destination because you got it first". That's the NFL definition but has little to do with communications law. In this post you relate the word to a physical connection to the media, but make no reference to keeping it from its intended recipent.
Actually, the way that most legislation is drafted is to define important terms so that people are not left to guess or argue over what they mean. This is even more the case with statutes that have penalties for their violation. Sometimes it's done well and in other cases less well. You will note that "intercept" is a defined term in 18 U.S.C. sec. 2510(4) where it is defined as follows:
"(4) “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device."
If you read other sections of that act, you will see that many of the terms in (4) are further defined.
Therefore for the purpose of that act, that's what it means. Nothing about catching it or keeping it from its intended recipient and nothing about a physical connection.
People who create things which one doesn't understand are not necessarily ignorant.
Dick