Text 936, 108 rader
Skriven 2012-07-19 19:06:51 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
    Kommentar till text 924 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: .fidonet
================
HI mark,

On Thu 2012-Jul-19 13:55, mark lewis (1:3634/12) wrote to Richard Webb:

 WD> If I go on marine VHF Channel-16 yapping about the extramarital
<snip>
 RW> Almost, fcc communications law, amendments to communications act of
 RW> 1934.  This one comes up a lot within "monitoring"
 RW> groups, such as shortwave listeners, scanner listeners, etc. 

ml> yeah, that's what i was aiming at... radio comms law :)


<snip>
 RW> MOst times it's not going to be noticed, unless you commit
 RW> another "crime" alogn with it, let's say the guy orders the
 RW> cool new thing via ship to shore telephone, you're listening on
 RW> your favorite shortwave receiver and hear him give a
 RW> credit card number.  Besides being prosecuted for utilizing
 RW> that purloined cc number they might bring in federal stuff
 RW> from the communications act.

ml> what about if you hear a supposedly "family values" political
ml> candidate talking with his supposedly non-existant girlfriend who is
ml> not his wife? if you use that information against him in his run for
ml> office or to have him ousted from office, is that a crime, too??

Probably could be.  But that's a hard one to prove that you
were the one to actually "intercept' the communications.  I
think that might have been how the person who intercepted
Gingrich's cell phone conversation skated on it.  But,
remember that interception was the main reason for some big
revisitations to the communications law, ecpa, etc.

 RW> But, now were i to follow him and another station off
 RW> frequency and post notes on the conversation the skipper had with
 RW> his sister via phone patch then I'd be badly breaking
 RW> the law according to the amendments to the communications
 RW> act of 1934, ecpa etcetera.

ml> hummm... that might answer my question above... maybe...

YEp, you're technically in violation, but who's to prove you were the one to
divulge.  YOu could always say that somebody called you on the phone and said
tune to this frequency
there's something interesting going on.

Back around that time my voice line used to have one of
those old 49 megahertz cordless phones on it, and this old
biddy lived behind me and down the street a ways used to
love listening to 49 mhz on her scanner, I knew from
comments she made to my mother she was intercepting my
conversations.

 RW> But, the way that law was written gave people a loophole
 RW> which enabled them to listen to cellular phones, when they
 RW> were analog, until some of the later versions of ecpa.
 RW> That's why that dc to daylight receiver you bought since the early
 RW> '90's has the cellular phone bands blocked out if
 RW> you're in the U.s.

See NEwt Gingrich.

ml> yeah, i remember that... they were easy enough to enable, though...
ml> a jumper here or a diode there...

YEp, and, when cellular was still analog, the continuously
tunable uhf tv tuner would git-r-done.

 RW> Those are the same amendments that protect you and me as
 RW> sysops, if we treat ourselves as common carriers, and don't
 RW> provide ourselves any facility to read in transit netmail,
 RW> etc. etc.  IF we didn't see it, then we have no obligation
 RW> to report it if there *is* criminal activity.  See past
 RW> exchanges between us this echo over last couple of days on
 RW> this one <grin>.

ml> yup and that's how i see my system and what it offers... common
ml> carrier... even though "we" are not as large or moving as much
ml> traffic as the big commercial guys...

DItto here.

 RW> But, for a quick and dirty example ...

 RW> I use netmail or email to arrange a meet with my connection. IF you
 RW> have the capability to read private mails, and can do so, then
 RW> you'd be obligated to become a narc.  But, if you
 RW> have no facility to do so, then you aren't culpable as a co
 RW> conspirator.

ml> exactly...

 RW> Which is why MIke GOdwin and others were urging bbs sysops
 RW> in the early '90's to forget about all those silly
 RW> disclaimers re privacy, etc.

ml> yup! i haven't heard mike's name in a long time :)

Except in ROy's sig file <grin>.
But, even in my busy hubbing days I availed myself of those
protections <grin>.

Regards,
           Richard
... NO highs, no lows, must be Bose.
---
 * Origin:  (1:116/901)