[alt.activism] Federal Communications Commission and the Law

bei@puzzle.UUCP (01/17/90)

In article <822@ra.cs.Virginia.EDU> clc5q@shamash.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
>I am not sure if the recent Supreme Court decision that cordless telephones
>can be eavesdropped upon without a wiretap was based on this statement,
>but it could well have been. Has anyone seen the decision analyzed in
>detail?

From what I've read, the reasoning is that, as I can receive your cordless
transmissions if my phone is on the same frequency, a cordless call cannot be
considered private.  Car phones also have the same problem.  The answer will
be to allow to people to scramble their calls, if they have an agreed upon
key.

>The bit of hypocrisy I detect in the lower court rulings is the ruling
>that it can be made illegal to "pirate" satellite or terrestrial microwave
>TV broadcasts.
>....
>If the broadcasters don't like it, let them change the law; but
>right now, that's what the law says.

They didn't change the law, they added the encryption.
Does anyone have a list of what services are scrambling now?  Has anyone
leased/rented/whatever a de-scrambler for more than one service?  Do you
need one for each pay service (if you're legitimately buying the service)
or is there a standard that program encryptors follow?
-- Bob
-- 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Bob Izenberg [ ] Ralph Kirkley Associates
              attctc!puzzle!bei    512 346 7019 (home)    Austin, TX
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------