"John R. Covert 14-Aug-1990 2201" <covert@covert.enet.dec.com> (08/15/90)
The California Senate has passed and sent to the governor a bill (AB3457) which gives conversations over cordless telephones the same legal protections from eavesdroppers as wire phone conversations. It makes it a misdemeanor, and in some cases a felony, to intercept cordless telephone call without the consent of the parties. The bill also bans manufacture, sale, and possession of any device enabling the user to intercept such communications. It provides for penalties from one year in county jail to three years in state prison with fines of up to $2,500. Don't these people realize that all you need to intercept a cordless phone call is another cordless phone? john
kam@dlogics.COM (Kevin Mitchell) (08/16/90)
In article <10925@accuvax.nwu.edu>, covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert writes: > Don't these people realize that all you need to intercept a cordless > phone call is another cordless phone? Or, you can use any good scanner. My Radio Shack PRO-34 sometimes stops on cordless phone frequencies -- they're crammed in between frequencies for other VHF services. Also, since a radio receiver can sometimes receive images offset by twice the Intermediate Frequency (10.7 MHz on the PRO-34, for an image offset of 21.4 MHz), I find it hard to search the 800 MHz public service bands for all the images of cellular calls that crop up there. (You get the image only if there isn't a stronger signal on the desired frequency). The PRO-34's come with the cellular range locked out. Changing the programming to avoid the few cordless frequencies hiding among other stuff would be prohibitive. My opinion on the matter are that other's phone calls are pretty boring and mundane anyway. Most of the cellular trash images that show up are either (1) Ringing tones, (2) somebody's answering machine message, or (3) "Honey I'll be a few minutes late." Federal law prohibits divulging the content in any case, or using the information received to commit a crime (spelled out in big bold letters on the first page of the {Police Call} frequency directory). Kevin A. Mitchell (312) 266-4485 Datalogics, Inc Internet: kam@dlogics.UUCP 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!kam Chicago, IL 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 [Moderator's Note: Actually, people who have done modifications to the PRO-34 to expand the coverage in the 800 megs range have discovered that in the process of moving a diode on the board, they lose all of the 30-50 meg (low VHF) range as a result. Highly illegal to make the mods in the first place, of course. PAT]
John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> (08/17/90)
John R. Covert <covert@covert.enet.dec.com> writes: > The bill also bans manufacture, sale, and possession of any device > enabling the user to intercept such communications. It provides for > penalties from one year in county jail to three years in state prison > with fines of up to $2,500. Wouldn't this be a little tough to enforce at a state level? You don't suppose they never heard of "mail order"? Besides, I thought all of this was under the auspices of the FCC, and that states and municipalities had no jurisdiction over the airwaves. And, once again, what about continuously tuned radios? By the time everyone gets their "protected" status, the only kind of receiver the public will be able to buy will be for broadcast transmissions. Judging from the state of broadcasting these days, it won't be long before interest wanes in these as well. > Don't these people realize that all you need to intercept a cordless > phone call is another cordless phone? True, but with the newer multi-channel, auto-select models, it is somewhat difficult. I have a Panasonic KX-T3900 and an AT&T 5500 that are frequently used simultaneously (the bases sit next to each other) and they never, ever experience mutual interference. It is most tricky to get one to "eavedrop" on the other. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <faunt@cisco.com> (08/17/90)
>By the time everyone gets their "protected" status, the only kind of >receiver the public will be able to buy will be for broadcast >transmissions. Judging from the state of broadcasting these days, it >won't be long before interest wanes in these as well. In Germany, the ICOM R1, which is a receiver with a range of 100kHz to 1300MHZ (in most places), is sold with a VERY restricted range, 13.95 to 14.5MHz, 28-29MHz, 144-146MHz, 430-440MHz, and 1240-1300MHz. These are basically some ham bands. It's pretty clear that the Germans don't want their citizens listening to anything but hams and broadcasts.
"Lou Judice, 908-562-4103 17-Aug-1990 1103" <judice@sulaco.enet.dec.com> (08/17/90)
John Higdon asked if this sort of regulation isn't the province of the FCC and not the states... Well, in the wonderful Garden State (New Jersey), scanners, SW receivers and many kinds of ham radio gear are illegal when used in or near autos. I know of several hams who have been arrested or harrassed under this law (Public Law 1977). Currently a measure has been passed in the State Senate to repeal the law, but it still needs to pass the Assembly and be signed by the Governor. Some police groups oppose it, though some police I know really don't care - since as you say these laws (like ECPA) are impossible to enforce. I suggest that before you folks in CA. end up like New Jerseyans with a silly law on the books that you write, write, write. Trust me, writing to legislators works! ljj
lemke@apple.com> (08/18/90)
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >John R. Covert <covert@covert.enet.dec.com> writes: >> The bill also bans manufacture, sale, and possession of any device >> enabling the user to intercept such communications. It provides for >> penalties from one year in county jail to three years in state prison >> with fines of up to $2,500. >...what about continuously tuned radios? >> Don't these people realize that all you need to intercept a cordless >> phone call is another cordless phone? Don't these people realize that there are many, many people who already own scanners which can pick up most cordless phone frequencies (usually around 49 MHz)? Will that make the sale and possession of scanners illegal as well? Steve Lemke, Engineering Quality Assurance, Radius Inc., San Jose Reply to: lemke@radius.com (Note: NEW domain-style address!!)
wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) (08/20/90)
In article <11016@accuvax.nwu.edu> judice@sulaco.enet.dec.com (Lou Judice, 908-562-4103 17-Aug-1990 1103) writes: # Well, in the wonderful Garden State (New Jersey), scanners, SW # receivers and many kinds of ham radio gear are illegal when used in or # near autos. I know of several hams who have been arrested or # harrassed under this law (Public Law 1977). Currently a measure has # been passed in the State Senate to repeal the law, but it still needs # to pass the Assembly and be signed by the Governor. Some police groups # oppose it, though some police I know really don't care - since as you # say these laws (like ECPA) are impossible to enforce. In New Jersey, effective early-1989 at least, you could use a scanner in your car if you got the municipal police chief's permission. The rationale was that crooks would use the scanner to find out where the police were, and know to commit their crimes elsewhere. Mitch Wagner VOICE: 516/562-5758 GEnie: UNIX-TODAY UUCP: wagner@utoday.com ...uunet!utoday!wagner
jeff@uunet.uu.net> (09/01/90)
In article <11017@accuvax.nwu.edu> radius!lemke@apple.com (Steve Lemke) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 579, Message 4 of 9 >john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >>John R. Covert <covert@covert.enet.dec.com> writes: >>> The bill also bans manufacture, sale, and possession of any device >>> enabling the user to intercept such communications. It provides for >>> penalties from one year in county jail to three years in state prison >>> with fines of up to $2,500. >>...what about continuously tuned radios? >>> Don't these people realize that all you need to intercept a cordless >>> phone call is another cordless phone? >Don't these people realize that there are many, many people who >already own scanners which can pick up most cordless phone frequencies >(usually around 49 MHz)? Will that make the sale and possession of >scanners illegal as well? I couldn't resist putting my $2 E-10 in. This story is second hand. Apparantly someone "overheard" drug deals on their cordless baby monitor. So they called the police. The police showed up and checked the neighbors, and sure enough, they found the dealer. They arrested him. This happened a few years ago in Spokane, Washington. I wonder if the dealer went to jail. If this incident happened in California today, and the person with the baby monitor called the police, the baby monitor would be confiscated and they would be arrested ;^). I can't beleive California is gonna try to implement such a law. What a waste of taxpayer dollars. Don't they realize that everyone (including drug dealers) already know that you can monitor cordless phone calls from another handset? Does this mean that when my handset rings and I pick it up only to find out that my neighbor got a call and I now hear the conversation, that I must turn myself in with the hope that I can get a light prison sentence because it wasn't intentional? Jeff Crilly (N6ZFX) AMIX Corporation 2345 Yale Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 jeff@amix.com, {uunet,sun}!markets!jeff
jeff@uunet.uu.net> (09/01/90)
In article <11018@accuvax.nwu.edu> faunt@cisco.com (Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 579, Message 5 of 9 >>By the time everyone gets their "protected" status, the only kind of >>receiver the public will be able to buy will be for broadcast >>transmissions. Judging from the state of broadcasting these days, it >>won't be long before interest wanes in these as well. >In Germany, the ICOM R1, which is a receiver with a range of 100kHz to >1300MHZ (in most places), is sold with a VERY restricted range, 13.95 >to 14.5MHz, 28-29MHz, 144-146MHz, 430-440MHz, and 1240-1300MHz. These >are basically some ham bands. It's pretty clear that the Germans >don't want their citizens listening to anything but hams and >broadcasts. Because of "production and distribution problems" (ICOM's reason) you can't even buy an R1 in the U.S. Some people argue that it ICOM is holding back because of the 800 mhz coverage and legal hassles of selling such a device that covers cellular frequencies. Jeff Crilly (N6ZFX) AMIX Corporation 2345 Yale Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 jeff@amix.com, {uunet,sun}!markets!jeff