bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) (01/11/90)
Excerpted from:
UPce 01/08 1709 Phone user vows new court fight
DIXON, Iowa (UPI) - An Iowan whose eavesdropping case was turned
down by the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday the issue sets up affluent
cellular phone users as a special class over average Americans using
cordless phones.
The high court refused to hear a case brought by Scott Tyler, of
Dixon against some nosey neighbors and Scott County officials who
listened in on his cordless telephone conversations for months in
1983.
At issue is whether users of such phones, now in millions of homes,
have an expectation of privacy in their conversations as they would
when using a traditional phone.
Tyler said he plans to refile the appeal before the Supreme Court
Oct. 1 after mounting a publicity campaign backed by supporters in the
Seventh Day Adventist Church.
Tyler has already received invitations for national radio and
television talks shows as well as news programs. National media such
as Time Magazine and The Wall Street Journal plan feature stories.
A local talk show host, Jim Fisher of WOC radio in Davenport, said
he will tape cordless phone conversations he picks up and air them
over his station to illustrate the problems with the Supreme Court's
decision.
Tyler said it's case of the justices lagging behind technological
development. He noted almost 40 years passed between the time of the
telephone's first widespread use and the first supreme court ruling in
1928 that phone conversations were covered by Fourth Amendment rights
of privacy.
Tyler said the refusal to extend those rights to cordless phones is
a slap at the common citizen. Privacy rights have been granted to
phone pagers and cellular communications already.
"The cellular phone, the rich man's phone, is covered, but the
average man's isn't," Tyler said.
According to lower court records, the case began when Richard and
Sandy Berodt, whom Tyler described as "political enemies," discovered
in 1983 that their cordless telephone could intercept conversations on
the cordless telephone in the Tyler household more than four blocks
away.
Tyler said he was suspected of narcotics dealing when the Berodts
misunderstood "light load" for "white load." Tyler ran a wholesale
food firm at the time.
Based on what they overheard, the Berodts suspected Tyler of
criminal activity and contacted the Scott County Sheriff's Department
and were urged to monitor Tyler's conversations. The county eventually
supplied the Berodts with recording equipment.
Tyler was never charged with drug dealing but was convicted on
theft and conspiracy charges stemming from his business. He served
four months in prison.
Tyler then brought suit against his neighbors and county officials,
charging the eavesdropping violated his constitutional rights. Lower
courts dismissed the case ruling he had no expectation of privacy when
using a phone they knew could easily be monitored and he appealed to
the high court.
Tyler is currently unemployed. Three supporters in the Seventh Day
Adventist Church are paying for Tyler's legal bills, which have
amounted to more than $200,000, and giving him a stipend to travel the
country publicizing his case, he said.
He argued phone partylines are covered by privacy rights and also
said the lower court's reliance on radio waves as a justification for
not protecting cordless phones does not make sense.
Cellular phones are entirely broadcast over radio while cordless
phones are merely transmitted from the headset to the base unit, which
is plugged into a regular phone jack. The other half of conversations
could also be over regular landlines and would have a reasonable
expectation of privacy, Tyler said. [ wrong - ed ]
"This could take on Orwellian excesses," Tyler said. "Police could
sit on a street with an AM radio and wait for a criminal conversation
to occur."
/* end excerpted text */
Interesting to Telecommers, notwithstanding some of the inaccuracies.
John Boteler
NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible
{zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote
[Moderator's Note: I will comment for now only on the proposed
activities of Jim Fisher, the talk-show host on WOC/Davenport. I
can't believe he is as dumb as he sounds. *If* he plays those phone
calls over the radio, he will risk the station losing its license, and
being fined heavily. In addition, there could be fines against him.
You may not broadcast a telephone call over the air without the
knowledge and consent of the person(s) on the phone. Steve Dahl tried
it in Chicago and had fines heaped upon his station by the FCC. You
may not ever engage in an activity for personal gain based upon what
you overheard in a radio transmission not intended for yourself. You
may not discuss what you heard, or acknowledge that you heard
anything. Please note a 'broadcast' is a radio transmission intended
for you; a telephone conversation which uses a radio link in part or
in whole is a radio transmission *not* intended for you, and while I
disagree with the ECPA, and believe I have the right to decipher any
electromagnetic radiation which comes my way, I still believe the FCC
was correct in prohibiting the use of information overheard by third
parties while tuning their radios, etc. Not in *listening* to it, mind
you, just in acknowledging it or using it.
Mr. Fisher seems to think its okay to personally gain from what he
hears by using it for an 'interesting' program, and he certainly does
not feel he needs to obtain permission from the telephone users. His
proposed violations of the law are not merely 'cordless phone issues',
but rather, violations of various other FCC regs. PT]Bernie Cosell <cosell@bbn.com> (01/12/90)
csense!bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) writes: } DIXON, Iowa (UPI) - An Iowan whose eavesdropping case was turned }down by the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday the issue sets up affluent }cellular phone users as a special class over average Americans using }cordless phones. ...... } Tyler said the refusal to extend those rights to cordless phones is }a slap at the common citizen. Privacy rights have been granted to }phone pagers and cellular communications already. ...... } "The cellular phone, the rich man's phone, is covered, but the }average man's isn't," Tyler said. ...... This is probably a misc.legal matter, but I'll ask anyway: isn't this guy a bit confused? The "Privacy rights" for phone pagers and cellular phones are, I thought, *not* a matter of "rights" but a matter of "law". That is, that if cellular phones were *not* covered by the ECPA, the SC might well rule that they, too, don't carry such an expectation. / Bernie \
"John R. Levine" <johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> (01/12/90)
In article <2794@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >You may not broadcast a telephone call over the air without the >knowledge and consent of the person(s) on the phone. My recollection of the ECPA is that it specifically prescribes no penalties for disclosing a cordless phone conversation. It is not at all clear how that relates to the traditional policy that radio transmissions not intended for the public may be intercepted but not disclosed. For that matter, the question of party lines is an interesting one. Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy on a party line? How about if you pick up the phone wishing to make a call and, e.g. inadvertently overhear business plans or something of which you could take advantage, are you allowed to do so? What a mess. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl [Moderator's Note: Listening to a radio transmission is not the same as *disclosing* the contents of the transmission, and it certainly is not the same as *re-transmitting* the original transmission without the consent of the people involved. Forget cordless phones for a minute, and think 'radio transmissions' instead. PT]
deej@bellcore.bellcore.com> (01/15/90)
Sorry, but there are a couple of comments I feel I can't pass up... In article <2794@accuvax.nwu.edu>, csense!bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) writes: > Excerpted from: > UPce 01/08 1709 Phone user vows new court fight > DIXON, Iowa (UPI)... > "The cellular phone, the rich man's phone, is covered, but the > average man's isn't," Tyler said. Hmm. The "average man" is going out and buying $150 cordless phones, but telcos are still compelled to provide virtually free lifeline service to low-income households... > Cellular phones are entirely broadcast over radio while cordless > phones are merely transmitted from the headset to the base unit, which > is plugged into a regular phone jack. Sorry, UPI. Cordless phones are *broadcast* from the handset, and the base unit merely happens to be tuned to the proper frequency to pick it up. This "merely transmitted from the headset to the base unit" implies some sort of directional link... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."