hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (02/13/86)
<>Several people have commented on this bill which is to ammend title 18, United State Code. I've read through this bill (which Geoff@SRI-CSL.ARPA sent me) but have not read the existing title 18. A few items particularly caught my eye. The types of electronic communication for which interception *is* allowed are those made "through an electronic communication system designed so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the public." This seems to be to bias the definition against the interceptor (who may be as SWL, or a ham or may have more devious motives) because it doesn't make any difference how easy it is to "decode" the output from a receiver - the *intent* of the system designer can determine whether a crime is committed by the interceptor. Chapter 119 of title 18 is to be amended by substituting "electronic" in place of "wire" each place it occurs. This appears to put receiving a radio transmission on the same basis as tapping a wire. (Remember I haven't looked at the original bill - but this seems, once again, to be moving the presumption against the interceptor.) When tapping a wire, one usually has to be doing some sort of knowing trespassing, but tuning a receiver in one's home might not be considered to be the same sort of knowing trespassing. A new paragraph (3) to be added at the end of Section 2511 deals with penalties- <=$250,000 or one year in prison, or both for a first offense (same fine, with 2 years for subsequent offenses) "if the offense is committed for purposes of commercial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial gain--". (only $5,000, 6 months in other cases.) What is "private commercial gain"? Does it include listening to or watching something that somebody else pays to get to hear/see and so the interceptor has avoided paying? The implications of this bill might go much further than intended. I would appreciate seeing more discussion on this bill, and finding out if others think that my paranoias are working overtime. --henry schaffer
rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (02/21/86)
I read this article with great concern. I may be wrong but the last time reception of a signal was illegal was WWII. Many Japanese Americans were put in prison camps as spies for simply owning a radio. Commercial carriers (broadcast and telecomm) have now been given permission to scramble their transmissions. This should be enough to discourage any but the professional evesdropper. The professional evesdropper will either use the information (sell it to a competitor) in such a way that it will be difficult to trace, or be caught because of evidence other than ownership of the reciever and/or decoding mechanism. It reminds me of the man convicted of moonshining because he owned a still. the man asked; "you mean I'm guilty because I had the equipment?", the judge said "yes, that's right" the man said "then you might as well convict me of rape as well!!!" the judge said "you mean you've raped some one?" the man said "No, but I've sure got the equipment". It was mentioned on a nationally broadcast radio show, that you could call a cable operator in another city (or even state) and get the appropriate codes for a DES type tvro decoder, in exchange for your VISA card number. This was highly reccomended, because one particular city charged a fee that was less than half the price of our local cable company. In New York, it is illegal to connect a decoder to the cable circuit. In fact, if you connect a "cable ready" VCR and a "cable ready" television to a "Y" adapter, you can be fined or imprisoned. I can understand the cable company getting upset if you "tap in" without paying anything, but paying double for the same cable seems a bit unreasonable. The fee is $5/month per connection plus $5/month for a "Cable company decoder" plus $N/month for each "premium channel" you wish to recieve. I support encryption of commercial signals, particularly the "per program" options, because it exempts the broadcaster from liability and censorship problems. A "premium channel" can show R and X rated movies and if someone complains, they had to have either paid for the priviledge of watching or used an unauthorized descrambler. HR 3378 ensures the broadcaster that he is exempt from liability for broadcasting a potentially offensive signal, that should be the goal of this bill. Instead, it has made the reciever liable for owning decoding equipment. By the way, use of any survaillence equipment, in including acoustical "Big Ears" and optical telescopes, for the purpose of invasion of privacy is already covered by other state and federal laws. The most difficult part of enforcing this is proof that privacy was invaded. If a contracter outbids you by using ANY surveillance device, optical, acoustical, or electronic, there is still the problem of proving that serveilance was used, caused you damages, and was done for the explicit purpose of invading your privacy. In a civil case, where only a "preponderance of the evidence" is required, there is a remote chance of winning the case. In a criminal case, where there can be "no reasonable doubt" of all these facts, the chances of conviction are very slim. Interesting point: In Colorado, they stopped issuing "private investigators" liscences. The legislatures decided that the state could not grant anyone the right to invade another person's privacy, reguardless of how it was done.
ron@brl-smoke.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (02/26/86)
> In New York, it is illegal to connect a decoder to the cable circuit. > In fact, if you connect a "cable ready" VCR and a "cable ready" television > to a "Y" adapter, you can be fined or imprisoned. I can understand the > cable company getting upset if you "tap in" without paying anything, but > paying double for the same cable seems a bit unreasonable. The fee > is $5/month per connection plus $5/month for a "Cable company decoder" > plus $N/month for each "premium channel" you wish to recieve. Remember, it used to be illegal to install your own telephones, too. -Ron