jad@lanl-a.UUCP (03/26/84)
On the other hand, the Santa Fe New Mexican reports that the FCC does not consider wireless telephones to be covered in the wiretapping laws... Zozzles The Freep
wayne@bambi.UUCP (Wayne Wilner (Bell Communications Research)) (03/27/84)
Last week the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that people who use cordless telephones have "no reasonable expectation of privacy". Anyone who listens in on an FM receiver may bring recordings of those conversations into court as evidence, without worrying about wiretap laws. The ruling applied to a cordless phone which had only a 50-foot range, according to the manufacturer.
hardie@sask.UUCP (Peter Hardie) (03/28/84)
The advertised range of a cordless phone has no bearing upon how far it broadcasts its signal. The advertised range is limited by the ability of the handset (which is only battery powered) to pick up the signal from, and broadcast its signal to, the base. The base station is powered from an AC outlet and uses the electrical wiring in your house as an antenna. There are some cordless phones here in Saskatoon that can be clearly heard on an shortwave radio at a distance of 3 miles and thus the real range is considerably greater than that. I think states such as Kansas are right to decide that you have no privacy under the law if you use such a phone. The 'range' of the phone is irrelevant. The state can't guarantee you privacy anyway. I have heard all kinds of business deals being made over these phones. Some of these deals were obviously supposed to be of a confidential nature. There is no way to prevent people taking advantage of information they have heard over these phones and no way to detect that their information was obtained this way (if they are clever about it).
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (03/31/84)
Actually, there have been numerous exceptions to the blanket "freedoms" of the Communications Act over the years. For example, it has long been illegal to listen in on point-to-point telephone company microwave transmissions -- this is considered from a legal standpoint to be wiretapping. The rationale for the protection of satellite transmissions (HBO, etc.) sub-tv services, etc. is based on similar provisions. These services are being classified as point-to-point with a specific (multiple) set of subscribers -- not general broadcast operations. Frankly, I think it is rather hopeless to keep pointing at the old Act and claiming that it is "gospel." It is clear that the Act did not have any way to anticipate new technologies and the commercialized piracy of such technologies. For better or worse, the clear leaning of Congress and the Courts is toward more restrictions on usage (after all, the Act is not engraved in concrete). I don't think there's a snowbell in hell's chance of loosening this stuff up significantly -- the Congressional and Court trend is clearly in the opposite direction in line with current patent, trademark, and copyright trends. --Lauren--