Randy wrote:


So is monitoring private phone conversations.

Using a

scanner isn't.

Using a scanner to listen to phones on the old 46/49 analog band is not
illegal. You are confusing it with cell reception, which is illegal.


Right. And the only reason that listening to cellular has been
reclassified as illegal, came as a result of powerful lobbies by the
cellular companies. At the time of the ECPA, digital technology was not
quite "there" yet, and the cell companies die not have a technological
means to prevent people from listening. So they lobbied the FCC, to
remove the cell "chunk" from the 800 - 900 Mhz bands included with most
scanners. Since this frequency range was no longer considered a "common"
radio band, it could therefore be argued that listening to it, could be
viewed as deliberate eavesdropping.

But as far as anything else, if you can receive it, you can listen to
it. The only stipulation (And the only way that the law can prove you
actually did it, other than catching you in the act) is that you can't
devulge any specific information that you heard, or use it to your
advantage.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Gee Davie,,the more you blow smoke out your ass, the more ignorant you
become, but I don't mind educating lids like yourself and
Gillinad,,,now, before you react and go to pieces, try educating
yourself on the law of communication,,,you know,,,the thing in which you
hold a license but still seem unable to learn anything concerning
it.....
_
9th Circuit Decides Wiretap Act Case
8/14.
=A0=A0The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in
Price v. Turner, a civil suit alleging violation of the Wiretap Act in
connection with the monitoring of cordless phone conversations. However,
since the events giving rise to this case occurred ten years ago, this
appeal was decided according to state of federal law prior to the 1994
amendments to the Wiretap Act.
Frank Turner used a radio scanner to listen to and record conversations
of his neighbors who used cordless telephones. These phones used analog
radio signals at fixed frequencies, and hence, were easy to monitor. He
heard discussions of criminal activities. Turner also informed the El
Dorado County Sheriff's Department, which told him to continue, and
provided him assistance. All of the intercepted phone communications at
issue in this case took place prior to the 1994 amendments to the
Wiretap Act. One person whose conversations he monitored was Leora
Price.
Price filed a civil complaint against Frank Turner and El Dorado County
alleging, among other things, violation of the Wiretap Act, invasion of
privacy, and a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. =A7 1983. The District
Court granted summary judgment to defendants on all of Price's federal
claims. Price appealed.
The Appeals Court wrote that "At the time of its original enactment in
1968, the Wiretap Act did not expressly refer to the monitoring of radio
transmissions. When Congress enlarged the Act's coverage in 1986,
Congress explicitly excepted protection for the 'radio portion of a
cordless telephone communication.' ... It was not until 1994 that
Congress amended the Act to prohibit the interception of cordless
telephone communications." The Appeals Court affirmed.
_
Gee.....(caw.......caw........caw)
Delivered-To: =A0=A0 From: =A0=A0
(Twistedhed) Date: =A0=A0 Sun, Sep 7, 2003, 8:17pm
To: =A0=A0 Subject: =A0=A0 Cordless Phone law
Cordless Phone Conversations Can Be Private. Eavesdropping Can Be
Prosecuted!
_
Gee Davie-son,,,and here we have one but of MANY examples of a state
upholding the federal law. There's more but this is enough t illustrate
you, a hammie operator, know jack about communication law in the US as
it pertains to your illegal behavior that constitutes a felony that you
and Gilliland claim is legal.
=A0 _
=A0=A0The Michigan Supreme Court held this year that cordless phone
conversations may be considered "private conversations."=A0 In People v.
Stone, the Court approved a criminal prosecution against a husband who
had intercepted and recorded the cordless phone conversations of his
estranged wife.=A0 The Court decided, in a unanimous decision, that even
though a person may know that technology makes it possible to overhear
cordless phone conversations, that person can also presume that others
will obey the criminal law.
The Court ruled that such interception is a violation of the Michigan
eavesdropping statutes, and is also a felony under federal law.=A0 A
person therefore has what is known as a "reasonable expectation of
privacy" as to such communications.=A0 To what extent a "reasonable
expectation of privacy" may apply to a given case is a question of
fact.=A0 Cordless telephones apply; party lines do not.=A0 The inquiring
husband in Stone, therefore, was properly prosecuted under Michigan law.
COUPE, VAN ALLSBURG & PATER, P.C.
774 S. Washington Ave.
P.O. Box 1408
Holland MI 49422-1408
(616) 396-8883 ext 103
FAX (616) 396-8536

-
Gee, let's see again an active communication's law firm interpretation:

"and is also a felony under federal law.=A0"
=A0
=A0Hmmm,,,but we should believe Frankie and Hall, NOT the lawyers who
have been involved with such cases.
So, we now have Hall, who admitted to committing this FELONY, and
Gillinad who claims it isn't illegal to intentionally monitor a private
phone conversation.
Keep entertaining us, Frankie,, with the felonious N3CVJ..
You're quite welcome.
You guys really shouldn't shoot your mouths off about things you know
nothing of,,,like communication and communication law.

Oh yea,,,,I forgot to give thanks to the hammie in
Miichigan..............Thanks for the info.

Twistedhed wrote:

_
9th Circuit Decides Wiretap Act Case
8/14.
The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in
Price v. Turner, a civil suit alleging violation of the Wiretap Act in
connection with the monitoring of cordless phone conversations. However,
since the events giving rise to this case occurred ten years ago, this
appeal was decided according to state of federal law prior to the 1994
amendments to the Wiretap Act.
Frank Turner used a radio scanner to listen to and record conversations
of his neighbors who used cordless telephones. These phones used analog
radio signals at fixed frequencies, and hence, were easy to monitor. He
heard discussions of criminal activities. Turner also informed the El
Dorado County Sheriff's Department, which told him to continue, and
provided him assistance. All of the intercepted phone communications at
issue in this case took place prior to the 1994 amendments to the
Wiretap Act. One person whose conversations he monitored was Leora
Price.
Price filed a civil complaint against Frank Turner and El Dorado County
alleging, among other things, violation of the Wiretap Act, invasion of
privacy, and a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District
Court granted summary judgment to defendants on all of Price's federal
claims. Price appealed.
The Appeals Court wrote that "At the time of its original enactment in
1968, the Wiretap Act did not expressly refer to the monitoring of radio
transmissions. When Congress enlarged the Act's coverage in 1986,
Congress explicitly excepted protection for the 'radio portion of a
cordless telephone communication.' ... It was not until 1994 that
Congress amended the Act to prohibit the interception of cordless
telephone communications." The Appeals Court affirmed.


Maybe you should read the things you cut and paste before offering them
up as a some sort of confirmation for your deficits in comprehension.
You should note that this case was thrown out because at the time of the
alleged infraction, that the defendant's actions were NOT illegal. Since
in my own case, the conversations which I overheard, that you are so
fond of convoluting, occured in 1984, which is also before the passage
of the ECPA, therfore like in the case above, I am guilty of nothing
illegal. Also note that wiretap laws vary from state to state, and
what's true in one state, may not be in another.

Legislation which attempts to give the illusion of the expectation of
privacy over unencrypted wireless phones, is equally ludicrious, as it
is basically unenforcable, unless one reveals the content that they
intercepted. The only true expectation of privacy comes with a
technological solution to the problem.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Read the entre thing, Davie. It's now a felony and against the
law,,,just like it was when YOU did it,,,,,,,,,eat crow!

HAhaha..Davie,,,you liar,you had a scanner capable of listening to the
cordless phones in 1984? Name it.

Twistedhed wrote:

HAhaha..Davie,,,you liar,you had a scanner capable of listening to the
cordless phones in 1984? Name it.


Bearcat 210xl

Dave
"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ wrote: You can still tune cordless phones on a scanner, and you're
free to listen to anything you want (How could they ever catch you?).
The kicker is that you are not allowed to devulge details of what you've
heard, or use information to your advantage. Anyone who uses a cordless
phone needs to be aware of the potential security risks, and buy the
most advanced digital phone.
_
N3CVJ wrote: There can be no expectation of privacy or the protection
that comes from it, due to the "open" nature of unencrypted radio
transmissions. It's no more private than CB radio.
_
N3CVJ wrote:
But as far as anything else, if you can receive it, you can listen to
it. The only stipulation (And the only way that the law can prove you
actually did it, other than catching you in the act) is that you can't
devulge any specific information that you heard, or use it to your
advantage.
__
And Davie,,you made these posts in the last week. You're *wrong* and
incorrect. Such acts are NOT legal despite your professed ignorance
claiming they are. Congress broadened the act long ago.
One who has been a hammie as long as you should know better ( but you
suffer from a communication deficit as bad as Gillinad which prevents
such acquisition of knowledge), especially when you throw stones at
others for their topic of choice you claim makes them a criminal.
Hammies are recognizing davie,,you're a mess...a self-made lying
mess,,but a mess no, less g.

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
Twistedhed wrote:
HAhaha..Davie,,,you liar,you had a scanner capable of listening to the
cordless phones in 1984? Name it.

Bearcat 210xl

Dave

"Sandbagger"



LOL,,,,,,only there was no "Melrose Place" in '84,,,,,,,(engage N3CVJ
whine, bitch, and lie mode)......hahha!

N3CVJ wrote:
Also note that wiretap laws vary from state to

state, and what's true in one state, may not be
in another.

_


Not true. Congress broadened the act, Davie,,,,,you're wrong, incorrect,
and hostile over yourself, Get over it...LOL.