gnu@sun.uucp (John Gilmore) (10/16/84)
In case you can't tell, much of what follows is sarcasm. It's a good thing Netnews isn't transmitted by radio; I'm certain that some sorehead somewhere would use Goldwater's bill (if passed) to terminate net.jokes in favor of more traffic in net.ham-radio. > i have personally listened to > some of this malicious interference. just one individual can > prevent effective communications by many other persons wishing > to use a channel. Remember rabbit!jj and net.db? > while noting that this type of interference is prevalent on the > amateur, citizens, and marine band, goldwater said that it is > also creeping into the private land mobile, public safety... > (and even the) government communications networks such as those > of the faa and department of defense. Does he mean the ARPANET? > - transmission of unmodulated carriers, recorded > material music and threats, made directly over the ongoing > transmissions of other operators (harold r. claypoole, n6bii, > 1983) Net.flame > - long, continuous transmission of computer voice > synthesized audio signal or ticking clock on repeater input > frequency (henry c. armsrong, wa6cgi, 1983). All those nonsense header lines output by malicious mailers...automatic reports of how much news went thru what sites...who posted the most stuff this week...what all the site names are and who they talk to... > - whistling on frequency for a long period of time for > jamming purposes (donald e. miller, callsign unknown, 1978) Ever listened to a modem? > these cases illustrate examples of the type of purposeful > interference which this bill prohibits." goldwater said that he > didn't intend to limit the definition of the bill's terms to > these activities "but rather to explain the type of behavior to > which the bill is addressed." In other words, it's open ended and can be used against anybody. Even you, if we don't like you. > interference to home electronic entertainment equipment was not > addressed in the bill. Of course not! No ham would ever maliciously jam his/her neighbors. They'd only maliciously jam other hams. This bill is not aimed at protecting TV-watching citizens, only hams, of course. Hams deserve more protection than ordinary citizens, since they've been using the free public airwaves by exclusive license for decades now. > s.2975 will elevate willful and malicious interference to a > criminal offense pursuant to section 501 of the communications > act. this section provides for both a fine of up to $10,000 and > imprisonment of up to 1 year for a first offense and the same > fine and up to 2 years imprisonment for repeated offenses. Certainly the penalty fits the crime.