In article ws.com, "Phil
Kane" writes:

On 29 Jan 2005 00:35:13 GMT, N2EY wrote:

What if I don't want BPL signals on my house wiring, which I own,
interfering with radio reception in my house? Can I demand they keep
their BPL signals out of my private wiring?

(Standard "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer HERE)

I don't have that problem. My disclaimer is that I'm not "your"
(generic plural) lawyer ggg

HAW!!

Seems to me that the first thing you'd have to do is *prove* that the BPL is
causing you "harmful interference". Then you'd have to let the BPL providers
do
whatever they can to reduce or eliminate it - and FCC expects you to show
"good
faith" and cooperate with them. And even if the interference is not
eliminated,
FCC may or may not force the BPL folks to do anything about it besides
trying
to solve the problem.

Nah - that's a solution to a different problem.

I see your point - I was addressing the problem if interference did actually
happen.

What he wanted is for them to keep the signals out of his house on
demand. PERIOD. No reason need be given.

That's a different bucket of worms.

Yup.

Kinda like the person who objected to the installation of the cable TV coax on
the poles at the front of his property. His objection was that the cable
carried stuff like the "Playboy Channel". Never mind that he wasn't a cable
subscriber, and that the pole line easements predated his ownership of the
property - he didn't want his property used to distribute such programs in any
way!

Of course you can guess how much legal water that objection held...

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 29 Jan 2005 03:09:22 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Kinda like the person who objected to the installation of the cable TV coax on
the poles at the front of his property. His objection was that the cable
carried stuff like the "Playboy Channel". Never mind that he wasn't a cable
subscriber, and that the pole line easements predated his ownership of the
property - he didn't want his property used to distribute such programs in any
way!

Too bad if either the deed granted a utility easement (which most deeds
have) or a default easement (equivalent to "squatter's rights") was
created by the utility occupying that area.

As long as the dominent tenement (the easement-holder) is doing what
the easement describes or some other lawful act in furtherance of
same, the servient tenement (the easement-granter) is SOL.

Do not confuse those tenements with a similar-named type of housing
in which I grew up.

Of course you can guess how much legal water that objection held...

Yup...

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article ws.com, "Phil
Kane" writes:

On 29 Jan 2005 03:09:22 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Kinda like the person who objected to the installation of the cable TV coax
on
the poles at the front of his property. His objection was that the cable
carried stuff like the "Playboy Channel". Never mind that he wasn't a cable
subscriber, and that the pole line easements predated his ownership of the
property - he didn't want his property used to distribute such programs in
any
way!

Too bad if either the deed granted a utility easement (which most deeds
have) or a default easement (equivalent to "squatter's rights") was
created by the utility occupying that area.

Utility easement from wayback.

As long as the dominent tenement (the easement-holder) is doing what
the easement describes or some other lawful act in furtherance of
same, the servient tenement (the easement-granter) is SOL.

We had a classic case of this in my old neighborhood, atop RadioTelegraph Hill.

Water company bought up several lots on one street and built an above ground
water tank on two of them. Kept the other two lots for expansion if a second
tank was ever needed. Fenced the front of the property but not the back.

Property owners who backed up to the vacant water company area were allowed to
use the ground but not put up anything permanent. They kept the grass cut and
the weeds down, and there was no vandalism.

But after 20 years the water co. had to build a fence and kick the neighbors
off, even though they offered to sign legal papers disavowing any claim to the
land or right of access to it. Water co. was afraid of establishing a precedent
and a default easement, which in PA happens if you allow something for 21
years. Also liability, which was becoming more of an issue in those days (early
1970s).

Do not confuse those tenements with a similar-named type of housing
in which I grew up.

Of course you can guess how much legal water that objection held...

Yup...

OK, how about this one - actually had this discussion with a lawyer back in the
old analog-cordless-phone days(!):

Drug dealer operates out of a house unsuspected by neighbors because the
operation is so well concealed. But the dealer makes a mistake and gets one of
those first-generation no-security cordless phones

On 29 Jan 2005 15:31:01 GMT, N2EY wrote:

OK, how about this one - actually had this discussion with a lawyer
back in the old analog-cordless-phone days(!):

Drug dealer operates out of a house unsuspected by neighbors because the
operation is so well concealed. But the dealer makes a mistake and gets
one of those first-generation no-security cordless phones

And the rest of the question ??

Taking a WAG, in "the old days" it was not unlawful to intercept and
use as evidence the conversations from the base unit of a cordless
phone - no warrant was necessary. The (Federal) ECPA was amended a
number of years ago to require a warrant for the above, same as for
cellphone conversations.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article ws.com, "Phil
Kane" writes:

On 29 Jan 2005 15:31:01 GMT, N2EY wrote:

OK, how about this one - actually had this discussion with a lawyer
back in the old analog-cordless-phone days(!):

Drug dealer operates out of a house unsuspected by neighbors because the
operation is so well concealed. But the dealer makes a mistake and gets
one of those first-generation no-security cordless phones

And the rest of the question ??

Hit the send key too fast. Sorry.

Taking a WAG, in "the old days" it was not unlawful to intercept and
use as evidence the conversations from the base unit of a cordless
phone - no warrant was necessary. The (Federal) ECPA was amended a
number of years ago to require a warrant for the above, same as for
cellphone conversations.

He claimed that listening in on the conversation was the same as wiretapping,
and since there was no warrant for a wiretap, the evidence was all illegally
obtained and none of it could be used.

I said that the radio signals were not legally protected in any way, because
the Communications Act does not authorize the use of the radio spectrum for
illegal purposes. I also said that wiretapping involves connection to the
common carrier's equipment, and the customer-phone company contract specified
privacy of communications, while the radiating cordless phone is customer-owned
and no such privacy is contracted or even implied.

Also, I made the following analogy:

Suppose it is a quiet night in comfortable weather. Everyone in the
neighborhood has their windows wide open. Suppose Neighbor A, on his own
property, overhears Neighbor B, on *her* own property, discussing a drug deal
or other illegal act. Neighbor B doesn't realize how loud she is talking and
how well she can be heard across property lines. Is that evidence admissible?
Or is Neighbor A supposed to plug his ears and shout "lalala I can't hear you"?


My layman's guess is that, today, such an overheard conversation could only be
used to get a warrant.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 29 Jan 2005 22:20:26 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Taking a WAG, in "the old days" it was not unlawful to intercept and
use as evidence the conversations from the base unit of a cordless
phone - no warrant was necessary. The (Federal) ECPA was amended a
number of years ago to require a warrant for the above, same as for
cellphone conversations.

He claimed that listening in on the conversation was the same as wiretapping,
and since there was no warrant for a wiretap, the evidence was all illegally
obtained and none of it could be used.

That's what the law is today. Before the ECPA was amended, there
was a loophole that didn't cover transmissions from a cordless base
unit, only the handset. There was an actual court case in Nebraska
where a neighbor picked up a drug deal from a cordless phone base
unit, and the court held in that case that there was no violation
and the evidence was admissible.

Then the ECPA was amended to close that loophole.

I said that the radio signals were not legally protected in any way, because
the Communications Act does not authorize the use of the radio spectrum for
illegal purposes.

Not so - the purpose of the ECPA was to limit the power of the
government to use warrentless intercepted telephone or radio
conversations as mandated by the SCOTUS _Cohen_ case that
established the concept of "expectation of privacy" in
communications.

I also said that wiretapping involves connection to the
common carrier's equipment, and the customer-phone company contract specified
privacy of communications, while the radiating cordless phone is customer-owned
and no such privacy is contracted or even implied.

No again. Ther term "wiretapping" is applied to any communication
- aural, wire, or radio. IIRC that term is "street slang" and does
not appear in the ECPA.

Also, I made the following analogy:

Suppose it is a quiet night in comfortable weather. Everyone in the
neighborhood has their windows wide open. Suppose Neighbor A, on his own
property, overhears Neighbor B, on *her* own property, discussing a drug deal
or other illegal act. Neighbor B doesn't realize how loud she is talking and
how well she can be heard across property lines. Is that evidence admissible?

Sure is, to the limit of admissible hearsay.

My layman's guess is that, today, such an overheard conversation
could only be used to get a warrant.

That's because otherwise-inadmissible hearsay is admissible to
establish probable cause but cannot be used at trial.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane