From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: To tattle, or not to tattle
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:16:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

calley@optilink.UUCP (Chris Calley) writes:

>From article <1992Nov10.082413.22409@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, by billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson):
>> jfreem@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Joe Freeman) writes:
>> 
>> : What if they were running a crack house, molesting little kids
>> : or ripping your other neighbors off?  You would be as low
>> : as the people doing the deed if you didn't even anonomusly
>> : help (at the least).  
>> 
>> If they were molesting people, or robbing people - then certainly.
>> They are then harming other people. They are not doing so by running
>> a crack house.
>> 
>I believe that you are incorrect.  Furnishing crack cocaine to someone is 
>not only harming the buyer, but indirectly diminishing the quality of life
>for those in that neighborhood, and for us taxpayers as a whole.  Who pays
>when a crack addict ends up at the county hospital from an o.d.?  In the
>long run, it's you and me in the form of ever higher health care costs and
>taxes.

	I would add to that that if he doesn't feel that crack is
harming "other people", then he ought to check out the unfortunate babies
who are born addicted to it.

	IMHO, Crack houses ought to be burned to the ground and if the
swinebag crack dealers happen to be in it at the time it will be a few
less criminals on the streets.

>In one sense, when you eavesdrop on someones _private_ conversation, you
>become a party to that conversation and are therefore responsible for
>what you here.  If you condone the illegal actions of those you are 
>eavesdropping on, by all means DON'T turn them in.  But, if you believe that
>what they are doing is wrong, then be true to your convictions and report
>them to whoever.  But what you should not do is hide your head in the
>sand and pretend you didn't hear anything at all.  Or even worse, try to
>rationalize that what they are doing is not actually harming anyone.  That
>is an old argument that circumvents the real issue of right and wrong.
>If you don't want to take responsibility for what you may hear, then 
>don't eavesdrop on private conversations.

	To play devil's advocate for just a moment, I suspect that the original
poster was making a point (maybe even subconsciously) about those things
that - while being technically illegal - are a bone of contention,
societally.  OR, where do you draw the line on what you report?

	I don't think it is in society's best interests to legalize drugs -
thus, *I* would have no qualms about reporting what *I* would see as
drug crimes.

	If I lived in a state where cetain sex acts were illegal even
between consenting adults, and overheard a cordless phone call between
two such adults planning such sex, *I* would *not* turn them in.  For
my ethics and *MY* conscience (which anyone else should feel perfectly
free to disagree with) one is a so-called "victimless crime" and one
is not.

	All that aside, as a larger issue I also don't think we need
to be in the business of spying on everyone else.  That will take us
FAR closer to being a police state than any scanner ban or ECPA does.

	If you overhear something whilst just "scanning" the bands and
you feel it is truly important based on YOUR sense of ethics, then
report it.  For your own benefit, make sure before you do that it is
something actually worth reporting.  But don't just sit around playing radio
police waiting for someone to be stupid.

Duane
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,misc.legal