"Bruce in alaska" wrote in message
...
Hello Phil, I was wondering if the Secrecy Clause was
still a part of
the Communications Act of 1934, or if it had been
rescinded or replaced
by some other Language in some later Act? Does it still
apply to any FCC
Operator License Holder?

--
Bruce in alaska
add path after fast to reply

I am not an attorney or a specialist so I can't answer
this directly. However, you might be able to find what you
want at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18..._I_20_119.html

The entire current communications act is available as a PDF
from the FCC at:
www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

I think what you are asking about is the restriction on
discolosing any private communication one might intercept.
This never applied to amateur communication because it is
not, per se, private. It would apply to any commercial
communication you might overhear other than that clearly
intended for public consumption such as broadcasting.
That is, if you can hear telephone conversations from a
wireless phone or similar you may not disclose them to a
third party.
I suspect that like all law there are all sorts of
convoluted special conditions applying to this.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

In article ,
"Richard Knoppow" wrote:

"Bruce in alaska" wrote in message
...
Hello Phil, I was wondering if the Secrecy Clause was
still a part of
the Communications Act of 1934, or if it had been
rescinded or replaced
by some other Language in some later Act? Does it still
apply to any FCC
Operator License Holder?

--
Bruce in alaska
add path after fast to reply

I am not an attorney or a specialist so I can't answer
this directly. However, you might be able to find what you
want at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18..._I_20_119.html

The entire current communications act is available as a PDF
from the FCC at:
www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

I think what you are asking about is the restriction on
discolosing any private communication one might intercept.
This never applied to amateur communication because it is
not, per se, private. It would apply to any commercial
communication you might overhear other than that clearly
intended for public consumption such as broadcasting.
That is, if you can hear telephone conversations from a
wireless phone or similar you may not disclose them to a
third party.
I suspect that like all law there are all sorts of
convoluted special conditions applying to this.

I was just wondering if that language was still part of the
Communications Act of 1934. I am familiar with all it's ramifications,
as I have been a FCC Resident Field Agent, in the past. Phil
was an FCC Lawyer in California, before he left the Commission,
and I know he will have more current knowledge, about this, than
I have.

--
Bruce in alaska
add path after fast to reply

"Bruce in alaska" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Richard Knoppow" wrote:

"Bruce in alaska" wrote in message
...
Hello Phil, I was wondering if the Secrecy Clause was
still a part of
the Communications Act of 1934, or if it had been
rescinded or replaced
by some other Language in some later Act? Does it still
apply to any FCC
Operator License Holder?

--
Bruce in alaska
add path after fast to reply

I am not an attorney or a specialist so I can't
answer
this directly. However, you might be able to find what
you
want at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18..._I_20_119.html

The entire current communications act is available as a
PDF
from the FCC at:
www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

I think what you are asking about is the restriction
on
discolosing any private communication one might
intercept.
This never applied to amateur communication because it is
not, per se, private. It would apply to any commercial
communication you might overhear other than that clearly
intended for public consumption such as broadcasting.
That is, if you can hear telephone conversations from
a
wireless phone or similar you may not disclose them to a
third party.
I suspect that like all law there are all sorts of
convoluted special conditions applying to this.

I was just wondering if that language was still part of
the
Communications Act of 1934. I am familiar with all it's
ramifications,
as I have been a FCC Resident Field Agent, in the past.
Phil
was an FCC Lawyer in California, before he left the
Commission,
and I know he will have more current knowledge, about
this, than
I have.

--
Bruce in alaska
add path after fast to reply


The second link, the one to the FCC, has the complete
text of the current act but does not have an index which
makes it hard to look stuff up. I think it runs some 300
pages, if you know what section to look at you can see if
the language is still there. The privacy act may also apply
here and may provide protections not in the communications
act. All this is complicated by the various homeland
security acts which allow the government to do a lot of
snooping, but that does not apply to individuals.
I am also anxious to have an opinion from a lawyer who
specializes in communications law.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA