Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Secrecy Clause of the Communications Act of 1934
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the Communications Act of 1934, or if it had been rescinded or replaced by some other Language in some later Act?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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Secrecy Clause of the Communications Act of 1934
"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Hello Phil, I was wondering if the Secrecy Clause was still a part of the Communications Act of 1934, or if it had been rescinded or replaced by some other Language in some later Act?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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Secrecy Clause of the Communications Act of 1934
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Hello Phil, I was wondering if the Secrecy Clause was still a part of the Communications Act of 1934, or if it had been rescinded or replaced by some other Language in some later Act?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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Secrecy Clause of the Communications Act of 1934
"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 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Secrecy Clause of the Communications Act of 1934
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:04:27 EDT, Bruce in alaska
wrote: 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? Comes here the Kane tutorial on Communications Privacy / Secrecy...... ggg First - some definition. "Intercept" means to merely receive the contents of a communication, not necessarily the same meaning as to "intercept a forward pass" in football. "Divulge" means to pass the contents in whole or in part or in meaning to an other person not authorized by law to receive such contents. "Personal use" means "use for personal benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled to thereof" although courts are loath to apply that unless there's a monetary or similar benefit involved. Now to the law. There are two sections of law that apply. Section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended [Section 605 of Title 47 of the U S Code] provides that no one receiving, transmitting, or assisting in either may divulge the contents to someone not authorized to receive such or make personal use of the contents. with a whole bunch of exceptions and exemptions. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), part of Chapter 119 of the US Criminal Code [ Section 2510 et seq of Title 18 of the U S Code] provides that no one not authorized by the sender or by the law may merely intercept certain types of communication. The violation exists whether divulgence or personal use takes place or not. This is the section of the law that provides the illusion of secrecy to cell phone communications, among others. Again, there are a whole slew of exceptions and exemptions. Note that both sections exempt transmissions from amateur, CB, marine, and aviation stations and communications relating to a disaster, as well as broadcast programming (AM, FM, TV but not "satellite" TV) intended for direct reception by the general public. For more information. "inquire within". This is one of my specialties. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Secrecy Clause of the Communications Act of 1934
"Phil Kane" wrote in message ... On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:04:27 EDT, Bruce in alaska wrote: 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? Comes here the Kane tutorial on Communications Privacy / Secrecy...... ggg First - some definition. "Intercept" means to merely receive the contents of a communication, not necessarily the same meaning as to "intercept a forward pass" in football. "Divulge" means to pass the contents in whole or in part or in meaning to an other person not authorized by law to receive such contents. "Personal use" means "use for personal benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled to thereof" although courts are loath to apply that unless there's a monetary or similar benefit involved. Now to the law. There are two sections of law that apply. Section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended [Section 605 of Title 47 of the U S Code] provides that no one receiving, transmitting, or assisting in either may divulge the contents to someone not authorized to receive such or make personal use of the contents. with a whole bunch of exceptions and exemptions. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), part of Chapter 119 of the US Criminal Code [ Section 2510 et seq of Title 18 of the U S Code] provides that no one not authorized by the sender or by the law may merely intercept certain types of communication. The violation exists whether divulgence or personal use takes place or not. This is the section of the law that provides the illusion of secrecy to cell phone communications, among others. Again, there are a whole slew of exceptions and exemptions. Note that both sections exempt transmissions from amateur, CB, marine, and aviation stations and communications relating to a disaster, as well as broadcast programming (AM, FM, TV but not "satellite" TV) intended for direct reception by the general public. For more information. "inquire within". This is one of my specialties. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net Thanks Phil, this pretty much confirms my understanding of the law. -- --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Secrecy Clause of the Communications Act of 1934
I know you said "inquire within" but I hope that this is a short,
general-interest question with perhaps a one-word answer. (Except I don't think I've ever seen Phil give anything approximating a one-word answer grin). Phil Kane wrote: Note that both sections exempt transmissions from amateur, CB, marine, and aviation stations and communications relating to a disaster, as well as broadcast programming (AM, FM, TV but not "satellite" TV) intended for direct reception by the general public. What does "exempt" mean in this context? Does it mean that the provisions do not apply at all if the information is transmitted by amateur radio? I'm assuming that this is the case, since it's not unusual for material that we relay to appear in news articles. 73, Steve KB9X |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Secrecy Clause of the Communications Act of 1934
In article ,
Phil Kane wrote: On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:04:27 EDT, Bruce in alaska wrote: 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? snipped for brevity, but not for content..... For more information. "inquire within". This is one of my specialties. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net Thanks, Phil... I was sure that you would have the information. Now the final question, that everyone wants to know, BUT was afraid to ask..... Have you ever heard of ANYONE, ever being prosecuted for Violation of Section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934....... -- Bruce in alaska add path after fast to reply |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Secrecy Clause of the Communications Act of 1934
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:55:33 EDT, Steve Bonine wrote:
What does "exempt" mean in this context? Does it mean that the provisions do not apply at all if the information is transmitted by amateur radio? I'm assuming that this is the case, since it's not unusual for material that we relay to appear in news articles. That is correct. (Short enough? ggg ) -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Secrecy Clause of the Communications Act of 1934
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:22:41 EDT, Bruce in alaska
wrote: Have you ever heard of ANYONE, ever being prosecuted for Violation of Section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934....... There are a lot of cases brought under Section 705, most having to do with theft of satellite TV programming or bootleg cable TV descramblers which are covered by other subsections of Section 705. One curious case involved a subscription-TV provider who enabled Canadian providers to intercept its signals as opposed to a Canadian program supplier competitor, the case being brought on complaint of the Canadian government because the violator and the site of the violation was in the US. Most of the cellphone or cordless phone interception cases are brought under the Wiretap Act (the ECPA) of the U S Criminal Code, Title 18. The most famous case of off-the-air interception and divulgence involved a conversation between certain officials of the Republican party which was passed to "others", but long before that there were a few cases of taxicab radio interception by competing cab companies whose drivers "jumped" calls. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Santa Clause like you have never seen him before | Antenna | |||
Santa Clause like you have never seen him before | Shortwave | |||
Digital watermarks prove Easter Bunny son of Santa Clause | Shortwave | |||
Swiss Dig in Heels Over Banking Secrecy | Shortwave | |||
FA: 1934 ARRL Handbook | Swap |