parnass@ihu1h.UUCP (Bob Parnass, AJ9S) (03/18/86)
x From the March 11, 1986 issue of the New York Times: Cordless Phones Raise An Eavesdropping Issue By Joseph F. Sullivan "TRENTON, March 10 - Cordless telephones are at the cen- ter of a debate in the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice over whether current wiretap laws apply to the interception of conversations pulled out of the air." "Last December someone recorded hours of conversations that George Spanos, a Republican newly elected to the Plainsboro Township Committee ...., had over his cordless telephone with two political associates...." "Mr. Spanos, who works for the New Jersey Office of Telecommunications and Information Systems at state police headquarters...said he was shocked when he learned his private conversations were being recorded....." "...[the tapes eventually] found their way to Donald R. Belsole, the director of the Division of Criminal Justice. Mr. Belsole said the tapes might form the basis for crim- inal charges. But first, he said, he and his staff have to agree on whether the state's wiretap statutes apply." "Mr. Cantu, who received the tapes of Mr. Spano's conver- sations from an intermediary, said he believed they had been made by a ham radio operator...." "Mr. Belsole agreed that the state wiretap statues.....would cover the situation, but he said that other lawyers in his office disagreed. He asked for a report from his staff." "Enis Coleman [of the FCC], said FCC regulations adopted in 1935 and updated last year to cover cable communica- tions banned the unauthorized interception and use of any licensed transmission and carried penalties of up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine." "'The problem with cordless telephones is so new that we haven't had time to get into court with it,' Mr. Coleman said, 'but I expect that in the future we will'." "....a lawyer who represents Mr. Cantu said the proper application of wiretap laws to the Plainsboro case was unclear. He said he had found only two state court cases involving cordless telephones - in Kansas and Rhode Island. In those cases, he said, the courts had admitted evidence obtained through the recording of conversations over cordless telephones." "However, he said he had found a Federal District Court ruling that took the opposite position and suppressed the evidence obtained in this way. The court held, he said, that conversations over a cordless telephone were the same as those over a closed system and came under 'wire commun- ications.'" -- =============================================================================== Bob Parnass, Bell Telephone Laboratories - ihnp4!ihu1h!parnass - (312)979-5414
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (03/23/86)
In article <790@ihu1h.UUCP>, parnass@ihu1h.UUCP (Bob Parnass, AJ9S) writes: > From the March 11, 1986 issue of the New York Times: > Cordless Phones Raise > An Eavesdropping Issue > "TRENTON, March 10 - Cordless telephones are at the cen- > ter of a debate in the New Jersey Division of Criminal > Justice over whether current wiretap laws apply to the > interception of conversations pulled out of the air." > ... There was a similar case in Olcott, NY (40 miles NE of Buffalo), about two years ago. It involved two neighbors who were feuding, one of whom was tape recording the cordless telephone calls of the other. A properly executed search warrant resulted in seizing the tapes and recording equipment, and a prosecution was commenced under the eavesdropping statues of the NY State Penal Law. After much todo, a trial by judge resulted in acquittal on all criminal charges. While the judge plainly stated that he felt the eavesdropping was a "rotten thing to do", he could find no criminal violation of the NY State Penal Law. The general legal reasoning behind the decision involved: (1) The user of a cordless telephone operating on citizen's band frequencies has no reasonable expectation of privacy. (2) The eavesdropping did not involve any physical act with respect to the "victim's" telephone line or premises. (3) The eavesdropping consisted merely of using a radio receiver and tape recorder, with those acts in themselves not being criminal. The issue of "disclosure" to third parties of the communications was raised, but since such an act could POSSIBLY be a violation of the federal Communications Act of 1934 law, and the matter being tried was for the state law only, there could be no consideration of this issue. ==> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <== ==> UUCP {decvax|dual|rocksanne|rocksvax|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <== ==> VOICE 716/688-1231 {rice|shell}!baylor!/ <== ==> FAX 716/741-9635 {G1, G2, G3 modes} duke!ethos!/ <== ==> seismo!/ <== ==> "Have you hugged your cat today?" ihnp4!/ <==