[net.ham-radio] illegal monitoring?

rjr@mgweed.UUCP (Bob Roehrig) (01/04/84)

Interesting topic on monitoring vs. eavesdropping vs. wiretapping, etc.

As far as I know in FCC rules, The Communications Act prohibits divulging
the contents of any communication except those from broadcast stations
and amateur stations. In other words, it is illegal for me to tell you
what I heard on a police scanner, CB radio, marine band, cordless phone,
etc. It is NOT illegal for you to receive transmissions
from a police scanner, marine radio, microwave system, cordless phone
or whatever, as long as you keep it to yourself. This should include
scrambled stuff on TV. As far as I am concerned, anything that
is transmitted on "Broadcast" frequencies by stations licensed for public
broadcasting, belongs to anyone that has the capability to watch/hear it.
My feeling is that services that want to get paid do not belong on standard
broadcast frequencies!

Notice that the FCC purposely has avoided making any decisions on this.

Interesting to note that "ON TV" has hired a detective to locate "illegal"
receiving setups. It was reported in a Chicago paper that they can drive
around and pick up signals from your set to determine what channel you
are watching and if it is channel 44 they will prosecute. I would love
to blanket the area with a signal operating on the local osc frequency
of a TV tuner that would be tuned to that channel. 

giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles) (01/10/84)

<<eeck--- this sentence isn't dressed yet....>>

>  Interesting to note that "ON TV" has hired a detective to locate "illegal"
>  receiving setups. It was reported in a Chicago paper that they can drive
>  around and pick up signals from your set to determine what channel you
>  are watching and if it is channel 44 they will prosecute. I would love
>  to blanket the area with a signal operating on the local osc frequency
>  of a TV tuner that would be tuned to that channel. 

Lovely.  I remember the local moral mafia (sorry for the insult to the
mafia) taking photographs of car license plates at local adult bookstores
several years ago.  I seem to recall that they then published the tags in
the local paper, harassed the owners at work, or some other upstanding and
moral activity.

What will happen now?  If some station (cable or broadcast) shows a movie/
show/documentary which group * doen't like, will * go around in their
cars determining who is watching it?  I can see it now, with selectors 
set to the 'Playboy Channel' and the automatic dialers starting prerecorded
sermons on sin.

What *are* the laws regarding privacy in the Chicago area?  Could that 
station be hit with a megabuck suit for invasion of privacy?  I generally
don't like such apparently trivia lawsuits, but this reeks of big brother
too much.  After all, think of how much you could determine about a person
knowing `only' what shows [s]he watched.

Or for that matter, why should you be open to a law suit solely because
your television is tuned to channel 44.  Perhaps you enjoy watching encoded
television shows.  Like, you know, they're sortta like koans, man!

Next thing you know, typewriters will be contraband (as in most of the
world today).


Bruce Giles
---------------------------------------------
UUCP:		decvax!ucf-cs!giles
cs-net:		giles@ucf
ARPA:		giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay
---------------------------------------------

rmd@hpcnoa.UUCP (01/19/84)

#R:mgweed:-601800:hpcnoa:15300001:000:445
hpcnoa!rmd    Jan 14 16:12:00 1984

Doesn't the cable companies' own argument apply to them in this case?

They are running around  monitoring  radio signals with  information not
intended for their use.  It is OK for them to receive these  signals but
it should not be OK for them to make use of the information  they obtain
from such  eavesdropping  -- just as the  eavesdroppers  on other  radio
broadcasts may not sell them or use them for financial gain.

Rick Dow
hpfcla!rmd