[net.dcom] H. R. 3378 on interception of communication

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