djcl@uunet.uu.net (woody) (07/22/90)
The _Toronto_Star_, 21st July 1990 had an article entitled "Phone puts
B.C. whiz kid's career on hold". It was about the controversy
surrounding former British Columbia Attorney-General Bud Smith, after
some tapes of some of his cellular phone calls were released.
Brian Graves, a freelance radio reported in Victoria, BC started to
tape {_some of Smith's cellular calls, particularly those exposing a
dubious liaison with TV reporter Margot Sinclair. Smith also let loose
with some nasty rhetoric about his politician buddies (within the same
party at that).
These cellular recordings were referred to as the "Rocky and
Bullwinkle Show" tapes, considering that "Rocky" was a nickname Smith
used for TV reporter Sinclair. Needless to say, a whole mess of
ethical and legal questions has come up, for both reporters and
politicians.
It should be noted that Canada does not have the same restrictions on
actual reception of cellular telephone frequencies that exist with the
ECPA in the US. Technically, it is legal in Canada to receive the
cellular frequencies, but there is a "secrecy of communications" law
which would prohibit divulging any information gained from receiving
non-broadcast radio transmissions.
gd@dciem.uucp (Gord Deinstadt) (07/28/90)
contact!djcl@uunet.uu.net (woody) writes: >It should be noted that Canada does not have the same restrictions on >actual reception of cellular telephone frequencies that exist with the >ECPA in the US. Technically, it is legal in Canada to receive the >cellular frequencies, but there is a "secrecy of communications" law >which would prohibit divulging any information gained from receiving >non-broadcast radio transmissions. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Some lawyers have argued that a cellular call *is* a broadcast transmission if the participants know that someone *might* be listening in. The politician in question at one point said something like "I don't want to talk about that over this phone"; it has been argued that by doing so, he effectively waived any right to privacy. Talk about catch-22! (Please note this is all speculation because the law has not been tested in court.) [Moderator's Note: "Some lawyers" can argue whatever they like, but the catch is, was the transmission INTENDED for broadcast? The fact that I can tune something in does not mean the transmission is intended for me. When I listen to KOA in Denver at night and hear a commercial for new automobiles, that message is INTENDED for me to hear; therefore it is a 'broadcast'. The intent has to be there to qualify something as a broadcast. No intent? ... then no broadcast. No broadcast, then no right to repeat, acknowledge, 're-broadcast', profit from or print what was overheard. PT]
ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Benjamin Ellsworth) (07/31/90)
> [Moderator's Note: "Some lawyers" can argue whatever they like, but > the catch is, was the transmission INTENDED for broadcast? Here you argue ethics rather than legality. The "catch" is what the law defines as lawful or unlawful. Intent *unless specifically mentioned* by the applicable legislation (or policy as for the FCC), is ENTIRELY irrelevant. > No broadcast, then no right to repeat, acknowledge, 're-broadcast', > profit from or print what was overheard. Legal rights are defined by the law. The understood definition of the law is under construction (remember we are talking about Canada here). Hence the basis of valid legal argument. Benjamin Ellsworth -- All relevant disclaimers apply. [Moderator's Note: The FCC rules are in fact very well defined. 'Broadcast' has a definite meaning, and it is the only type of radio transmission intended for dissemination by the listener. PT]
"Joel B. Levin" <levin@bbn.com> (08/01/90)
>From: Gord Deinstadt <cognos!geovision!gd@dciem.uucp> >Some lawyers have argued that a cellular call *is* a broadcast >transmission if the participants know that someone *might* be >listening in. . . . >[Moderator's Note: "Some lawyers" can argue whatever they like, but >the catch is, was the transmission INTENDED for broadcast? . . . >No intent? ... then no broadcast. No >broadcast, then no right to repeat, acknowledge, 're-broadcast', >profit from or print what was overheard. PT] This is essentially true and has always been, as far as I know. The controversial issues arise in the recent law (ECPA?) which seeks to extend the idea of what is illegal; it is now apparently illegal merely to _listen_ to such non-broadcast transmission, or to make or sell equipment capable of doing so. I don't think all of these new restrictions will hold up for long. /JBL levin@bbn.com or +1-617-873-3463
mc@sickkids.toronto.edu (Ms Mary Corey) (08/11/90)
In article <10044@accuvax.nwu.edu> contact!djcl@uunet.uu.net (woody) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 509, Message 4 of 10 >The _Toronto_Star_, 21st July 1990 had an article entitled "Phone puts >B.C. whiz kid's career on hold". It was about the controversy >surrounding former British Columbia Attorney-General Bud Smith, after >some tapes of some of his cellular phone calls were released. I've read several articles about this case, but none of them have stated information about the quality and duration of these recordings. However they do say that a scanner was used. My impression is that it is not possible or very difficult to identify and deliberately record a particular cellular subscribers phone conversations, nor is it easy/possible to follow that conversation from cell to cell. Can this be explained, is it legal, or is the cellular stuff just a smokescreen to hide an (illegal) wiretap?
Jonathan Story <jonathan@jspc.wimsey.bc.ca> (08/12/90)
Concerning the affairs of former British Columbia Attorney General Bud Smith and the recordings of his phone calls: In article <10708@accuvax.nwu.edu> mc@sickkids.toronto.edu (Ms Mary Corey) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 559, Message 4 of 12 >I've read several articles about this case, but none of them have >stated information about the quality and duration of these recordings. The excerpts that went out over radio and TV were of poor quality, and other parts were apparently indecipherable. >However they do say that a scanner was used. My impression is that it >is not possible or very difficult to identify and deliberately record >a particular cellular subscribers phone conversations, nor is it >easy/possible to follow that conversation from cell to cell. Can this >be explained, is it legal, or is the cellular stuff just a smokescreen >to hide an (illegal) wiretap? This information might be wrong, but I seem to recall reading that the tapes were not recorded from cellular calls but rather conversations that the minister made through a mobile telephone that works something like marine radio ("AutoTel", I think). There are a small number of channels (six?) that are accessible throughout the province and I suppose Smith wanted to be able to stay in touch even when he was visiting some backwater whistlestop. As far as I know, the individual who admitted to making the tapes was nothing more than a news-gathering type creature who had a grudge, a scanner, and a recorder. The sins, if any, that the A-G committed are, in my opinion, exaggerated (although government drones have yet to speak.) To me, his most criminal act as a politician was using what amounted to a CB radio and thinking no one else would listen in. Incidentally, as part of the fallout, last I heard is that Smith is being sued by some lawyer who was maligned in a taped "private" conversation between the A-G and his deputy. My guess is that the suit will get laughed out of court; or have defamation cases been won elsewhere under such odd circumstances? jonathan@jspc.wimsey.bc.ca