[Spooks] [Fwd: Potentially Damaging News to Radio Hobbyists]

Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:44:19 -0400 (EDT)

All due respects Dave...

If they want you they will get you...  I have seen it happen and you
younger people have got to understand... you are walking on thin ice and
if you go too far you will lose... big time...

You can wave your 'book' and be damned...

Also consider the times... we are in a 'war'... sedition is a word that
can be used to keep a people locked away for as long as they wish...

Use your head...

73
Vince
ka1iic
-.--.

On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Dave Emery wrote:

>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 06:33:57PM -0400, Vince Werber, North Star Productions RR 2 Box 283 Pittston. Maine 04345-9414 wrote:
> > Well to be honest the 'rules' dealing with non-broadcast and non-amateur
> > transmission have been in place for years... never enforced but there...
> >
> > Here in the States listening or divulging the content of any non-broadcast
> > non-amateur transmission is 'illegal'... period.  You're not even suppose
> > to indicate that they even exist...
> >
>
> 	NOT TRUE... read the ECPA (18 USC 2511).  It is quite legal
> to listen to aircraft, ships, unencrypted public safety (police,
> fire, EMS, CD etc), governmental radio systems, and in fact any
> signal defined as "readily accessible to the general public".  Also
> it is specifically legal to listen to CB and GMRS as well as ham
> transmissions.
>
> 	But it is not legal to listen to cellphones, pagers, wireless
> email or any other common carrier provided transmission.  And it is not
> legal to listen to cordless phones or private microwave links or certain
> studio to transmitter links or remote pickup links for broadcast stations.
> And it is not legal to listen to SCA subcarriers or any signal that
> is scrambled or encrypted or transmitted in proprietary formats for
> privacy purposes.
>
> 	Section 605 of the communications act of 1934 did at one time
> forbid interception AND divulgance or use for benefit of radio traffic
> except ham and broadcast and CB and GMRS and distress signals, but the
> ECPA added language cross referencing 605 to the ECPA so the ECPA list
> of signals are perfectly legal under 605 as well and have been since
> the ECPA was passed in 1985.
>
> 	Note that the ECPA bans mere interception - nothing else needed
> provided you obtain the contents of the communication, whilst section 605
> has never banned mere interception - just interception AND divulgance or
> use for benefit.   Thus in the good ole days before the ECPA listening
> to any signal at all was legal provided you did not divulge what you
> heard or use the information for benefit.  And yes, divulging the existance,
> purport or intent of a communication other than ham or broadcast was
> illegal - now it is probably illegal only if the communication is
> one of the forbidden ones under the ECPA.
>
>
> --
> 	Dave Emery N1PRE,  [email protected]  DIE Consulting, Weston, Mass.
> PGP fingerprint = 2047/4D7B08D1 DE 6E E1 CC 1F 1D 96 E2  5D 27 BD B0 24 88 C3 18
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spooks mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/spooks
>
> -
> Visit http://www.spynumbers.com/ for complete information about Spy Numbers Stations
>