RadioBanter - Any Cell Phone Eavesdroppers Out There?

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- General (https://www.radiobanter.com/general/)

- - Any Cell Phone Eavesdroppers Out There? (https://www.radiobanter.com/general/25836-any-cell-phone-eavesdroppers-out-there.html)

I have a Pro-90, and a Optoelectronic Cub RF counter, I get all the numbers
I need.

": DeeVee :" wrote in message
...
Years ago, when cell calls could be heard on
scanners without modifications etc .. back before
there were CHEAP cellphone talk time plans ...
when people would say, " I will call you when I
get to the office or home, I am on my
$$cellphone$$." I heard a man on his cell, calling
a pay for phone sex number ... I thought to myself
.. As expensive as this call must be, he could
have hired a hooker ..

Is this the wrong type of post to make here ??
Sorry if I offended anyone.

--
___________________________________
From the messy desk of: DeeVee
28°52' 925" N / 81°14'.318" W (give or take)
____________________________________
Disclaimer: I have no idea what I am talking
about.

"toplocker" wrote in message
om...
| I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on
cel phone spy culture
| and would love to talk to some people who have
done this with some
| frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not
looking to do a hatchet
| job. Just wanting to learn more about it.
|
| Anyone willing to talk can email me @

|
| Thanks
|
| Michael Clarke

Considering cellular monitoring is a felony in the U.S. Don't be so sure
you can protect the identity of your informants. Especially under the new
Patriot Act, in the name of homeland security.

Bill Crocker

"toplocker" wrote in message
om...
I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture
and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some
frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet
job. Just wanting to learn more about it.

Anyone willing to talk can email me @

Thanks

Michael Clarke

But in Canada the RCMP when asked about it say what where, how come, they
don't really care two bits.
"Bill Crocker" wrote in message
...
Considering cellular monitoring is a felony in the U.S. Don't be so sure
you can protect the identity of your informants. Especially under the new
Patriot Act, in the name of homeland security.

Bill Crocker

"toplocker" wrote in message
om...
I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture
and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some
frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet
job. Just wanting to learn more about it.

Anyone willing to talk can email me @

Thanks

Michael Clarke

Hey buttmunch - it's dead HERE. I am not THERE.

wrote in message
.. .
Hey Joe,

All and nothing are big words..plenty of action on my pro-2032.
Perhaps you should do a little research next time.

On Fri, 07 May 2004 23:50:08 GMT, "JOE" wrote:

I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture
and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some
frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet
job. Just wanting to learn more about it.

Perhaps you should start out your writing career by learning to spell.

Nevermind that cell phones are ALL digital now. There is nothing
to be heard.

Troll.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 May 2004 01:46:01 -0400, w2rac wrote:

Only if the person has a speakerphone, or the volume up to much.

Then you cant help hearing them as they YELL at the caller.

I hate NEXTEL (speakerphone and the beeping) and stupid people who
dont turn down the volume!!!! They dont even realise they are yelling
into the phone.

Or the stupid Nextel users who don't realize they can shut off the
loudspeaker
and hold it like a normal cell phone? The difference is you just use the
PTT
button....

What ****es me off, is in council meetings where one individual "always"
gets a Nextel call. You would think he would turn it off for the short time
we meet OR tell them not to call, he won't be available or plain turn the
damned thing off. That is very distracting to see and hear when important
issues are being discussed. I swear, I "think" some do this crap to impress
others. "I" could give a **** less. It isn't something "new" that you just
"have to flash".

Lou

Right....and give the special interest groups another reason to
pressure Congress to pass additional restrictive legislation on
citizens. Shut up!

toplocker wrote:

I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture
and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some
frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet
job. Just wanting to learn more about it.

Anyone willing to talk can email me @

Thanks

Michael Clarke

It should be of interesting note to know that posts , nearly
identical to this original post by " supposed " journalists ..were
commonly seen on the cellular hacking NGs back in the 92 - 94 era.

they were fairly common and numerous. turned out they were most
often made by FBI personnel ( + possibly other government
agencies ) and initially the information made it's way into reports
used by the government and private manufactures to craft / draft
the super strict killer FCC EE3 cellular legislation and resultant
rule making. this rule making basically resulted in the death of
all USA cellular hacking and was used in most of the
anti-eavesdropping legislation too. it was claimed , in
about '94 , that the same information gained was used by the feds to
prosecute a number of people that supplied information to the
posters of the requests. people thought they were protected by
confidential reporter acts , when in reality they were actually
inter reacting directly with federal law enforcement people and THOSE
people are NOT required , by law , to be truthful with you. lieing
such as claiming to be journalists is not illegal for law enforcement
operatives.

interesting , slightly different in these posts is that the person is
seeking information strictly on ( illegal ) eavesdropping and
not the so called " hacking " like posts of the earlier era.
this , probably because " they " know that basic cellular
hacking is dead and that only " eavesdropping " could remain.

dunno what anyone , even law enforcement people , could expect to gain
by this old ploy / exploit , anymore. cellular hacking is dead and
analog cellular eavesdropping is experiencing the death rattle.
still .......... it's good to remember the historic relationships and
keep that in mind , nowadays. might also be some homeland
defense people with too much time on their hands too.

k..........

p.s. ....check out that email addy name .... " toplocker "
ah ah ah aha ha ahaa

On Sun, 30 May 2004 16:21:51 -0400, john wilson
wrote:

Right....and give the special interest groups another reason to
pressure Congress to pass additional restrictive legislation on
citizens. Shut up!

toplocker wrote:

I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture
and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some
frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet
job. Just wanting to learn more about it.

Anyone willing to talk can email me @

Thanks

Michael Clarke

john wilson wrote:

Right....and give the special interest groups another reason to
pressure Congress to pass additional restrictive legislation on
citizens. Shut up!

Nick Wrote:
It's because of **** like this that Americans are now criminals
if they listen to certain
radio frequencies. Let it die .

Excellent idea. Do your own scanning. Drop it. Troll elsewhere.

Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act of 1992 (TDDRA)

Public Law: 102-556 (10/28/92)
H.R.6191 SPONSOR: Rep Swift (introduced 10/06/92)
S.1579 SPONSOR: Sen Inouye (introduced 07/29/91)
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c102query.html [H.R.6191.ENR]
SEC. 402. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
SEC. 403. INTERCEPTION OF CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS.

(a) AMENDMENT- Section 302 of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 302) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:

`(d)(1) Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this
subsection, the Commission shall prescribe and make effective
regulations denying equipment authorization (under part 15 of
title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any other part of
that title) for any scanning receiver that is capable of--

`(A) receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated to
the domestic cellular radio telecommunications service,

`(B) readily being altered by the user to receive transmissions
in such frequencies, or

`(C) being equipped with decoders that convert digital cellular
transmissions to analog voice audio.
------

US CODE COLLECTION
TITLE 47 CHAPTER 5 SUBCHAPTER III Part I Sec. 302a.
Sec. 302a. - Devices which interfere with radio reception

(d) Cellular telecommunications receivers

(1) Within 180 days after October 28, 1992, the Commission
shall prescribe and make effective regulations denying
equipment authorization (under part 15 of title 47,
Code of Federal Regulations, or any other part of that title)
for any scanning receiver that is capable of -

(A) receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated to
the domestic cellular radio telecommunications service,

(B) readily being altered by the user to receive transmissions
in such frequencies, or

(C) being equipped with decoders that convert digital cellular
transmissions to analog voice audio.

[CITE: 47/302a] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/302a.html
--

FCC Rules: PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--
Subpart B--Unintentional Radiators

Sec. 15.121 Scanning receivers and frequency converters
used with scanning receivers.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section,
scanning receivers and frequency converters designed or
marketed for use with scanning receivers, shall:

(1) Be incapable of operating (tuning), or readily being
altered by the user to operate, within the frequency bands
allocated to the Cellular Radiotelephone Service in part 22
of this chapter (cellular telephone bands).

[CITE: 47CFR22.905] http://tinyurl.com/3ygxp
--

Scanning receivers capable of ``readily being altered
by the user'' include, but are not limited to, those
for which the ability to receive transmissions in the
cellular telephone bands can be added by clipping the
leads of, or installing, a simple component such as a
diode, resistor or jumper wire; replacing a plug-in
semiconductor chip; or programming a semiconductor chip
using special access codes or an external device,
such as a personal computer.

Scanning receivers, and frequency converters designed for
use with scanning receivers, also shall be incapable of
converting digital cellular communication transmissions
to analog voice audio. (continued)

[CITE: 47CFR15.121] http://tinyurl.com/3yjpt
--