| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
November 24th 05, 02:33 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
Bash
"K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. Perhaps. I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. OK..I can buy those. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their money, that's theft. Of course it is theft because the person no longer has the money. If, on the other hand, you allow me to look in your wallet and I see you have 53 dollars, is it theft if I tell someone else I saw $53 dollars (one 20, three 10s and three ones). Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it to me? This analogy is totally off the mark because it involves a physical removal which is NOT what Bash did. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA offices all three. My High School science teacher who administered my Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to divulge the contents of the test. I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the test", Jim! The other legal question comes down to: is it legal to prohibit post test discussion. Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in Washington to "get hot". Too late. The answer will never be known now. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. Our loss, then and ever since. A waste of tme to discuss. You can't go back and that's the bottom line. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
#3
November 24th 05, 02:53 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,alt.pirate.radio,alt.radio.pirate,rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bash
Reposted for the guys in the Pirate Radio groups:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... "K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. Perhaps. I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. OK..I can buy those. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their money, that's theft. Of course it is theft because the person no longer has the money. If, on the other hand, you allow me to look in your wallet and I see you have 53 dollars, is it theft if I tell someone else I saw $53 dollars (one 20, three 10s and three ones). Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it to me? This analogy is totally off the mark because it involves a physical removal which is NOT what Bash did. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA offices all three. My High School science teacher who administered my Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to divulge the contents of the test. I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the test", Jim! The other legal question comes down to: is it legal to prohibit post test discussion. Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in Washington to "get hot". Too late. The answer will never be known now. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. Our loss, then and ever since. A waste of tme to discuss. You can't go back and that's the bottom line. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
#4
November 24th 05, 05:51 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bash
Bill Sohl wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. Perhaps. I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. OK..I can buy those. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their money, that's theft. Of course it is theft because the person no longer has the money. If, on the other hand, you allow me to look in your wallet and I see you have 53 dollars, is it theft if I tell someone else I saw $53 dollars (one 20, three 10s and three ones). Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it to me? This analogy is totally off the mark because it involves a physical removal which is NOT what Bash did. So is the "show me the money" analogy. Here's why: The alleged "theft" was of intellectual property, not a thing like money. Try this analogy: Last Friday I saw the new Harry Potter movie at the local theater. (Excellent, btw). Suppose I had videotaped it while it was being shown - wouldn't that be theft? After all, the theater still has the film! And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? It says right on the movie tickets that you're not to copy what's shown. Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA offices all three. My High School science teacher who administered my Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to divulge the contents of the test. I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the test", Jim! The other legal question comes down to: is it legal to prohibit post test discussion. I would say "yes", *if* it's clearly explained as a condition of license grant. If not, the situation is legally murky in this nonlawyer's opinion. Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in Washington to "get hot". Too late. The answer will never be known now. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. Our loss, then and ever since. A waste of tme to discuss. I disagree! It's important to understand the history and what *really* happened. You can't go back and that's the bottom line. Actually we could "go back" to FCC exams - if FCC could somehow be convinced that they were necessary. Good luck doing that one! One more thought: 9) The FCC may have been aware of Bash's activities, and decided that they did not really harm the ARS, even if they were technically illegal. His activities may have convinced them to make the pools public, which incidentally put him out of business because then anyone could publish them. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#5
November 24th 05, 05:58 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,alt.pirate.radio,alt.radio.pirate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bash
Reposted for the guys in the Pirate Radio groups:
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: "K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. Perhaps. I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. OK..I can buy those. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their money, that's theft. Of course it is theft because the person no longer has the money. If, on the other hand, you allow me to look in your wallet and I see you have 53 dollars, is it theft if I tell someone else I saw $53 dollars (one 20, three 10s and three ones). Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it to me? This analogy is totally off the mark because it involves a physical removal which is NOT what Bash did. So is the "show me the money" analogy. Here's why: The alleged "theft" was of intellectual property, not a thing like money. Try this analogy: Last Friday I saw the new Harry Potter movie at the local theater. (Excellent, btw). Suppose I had videotaped it while it was being shown - wouldn't that be theft? After all, the theater still has the film! And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? It says right on the movie tickets that you're not to copy what's shown. Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA offices all three. My High School science teacher who administered my Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to divulge the contents of the test. I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the test", Jim! The other legal question comes down to: is it legal to prohibit post test discussion. I would say "yes", *if* it's clearly explained as a condition of license grant. If not, the situation is legally murky in this nonlawyer's opinion. Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in Washington to "get hot". Too late. The answer will never be known now. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. Our loss, then and ever since. A waste of tme to discuss. I disagree! It's important to understand the history and what *really* happened. You can't go back and that's the bottom line. Actually we could "go back" to FCC exams - if FCC could somehow be convinced that they were necessary. Good luck doing that one! One more thought: 9) The FCC may have been aware of Bash's activities, and decided that they did not really harm the ARS, even if they were technically illegal. His activities may have convinced them to make the pools public, which incidentally put him out of business because then anyone could publish them. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#6
November 24th 05, 10:42 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bash
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: "K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. Perhaps. I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. OK..I can buy those. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their money, that's theft. Of course it is theft because the person no longer has the money. If, on the other hand, you allow me to look in your wallet and I see you have 53 dollars, is it theft if I tell someone else I saw $53 dollars (one 20, three 10s and three ones). Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it to me? This analogy is totally off the mark because it involves a physical removal which is NOT what Bash did. So is the "show me the money" analogy. Here's why: The alleged "theft" was of intellectual property, not a thing like money. Try this analogy: Last Friday I saw the new Harry Potter movie at the local theater. (Excellent, btw). Suppose I had videotaped it while it was being shown - wouldn't that be theft? After all, the theater still has the film! That's a matter of copyright violation. The federal government is expressly prohibited from claiming copyright protection for materials it generates. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? It says right on the movie tickets that you're not to copy what's shown. Doesn't apply to government documentation. You and I are free to reproduce government documentation as much as we want. Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA offices all three. My High School science teacher who administered my Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to divulge the contents of the test. I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the test", Jim! The other legal question comes down to: is it legal to prohibit post test discussion. I would say "yes", *if* it's clearly explained as a condition of license grant. If not, the situation is legally murky in this nonlawyer's opinion. I think it is murky on any basis. Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in Washington to "get hot". Too late. The answer will never be known now. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. Our loss, then and ever since. A waste of tme to discuss. I disagree! It's important to understand the history and what *really* happened. But we'll never know what actually happened because there is NO record of the decision process and internal analysis the FCC might have done to determine it would not pursue any legal action against Bash. Phil Kane has his own opinions, but he's not the "higher ups" that made the final decision. You can't go back and that's the bottom line. Actually we could "go back" to FCC exams - if FCC could somehow be convinced that they were necessary. Good luck doing that one! Given the liklyhood of that happening, I'll stick with my opinion that you can't go back. One more thought: 9) The FCC may have been aware of Bash's activities, and decided that they did not really harm the ARS, even if they were technically illegal. His activities may have convinced them to make the pools public, which incidentally put him out of business because then anyone could publish them. Interesting thought. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
#7
November 24th 05, 11:05 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,alt.pirate.radio,alt.radio.pirate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bash
Reposted for the interest of guys in the Pirate Radio Groups: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message k.net... wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: "K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. Perhaps. I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. OK..I can buy those. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their money, that's theft. Of course it is theft because the person no longer has the money. If, on the other hand, you allow me to look in your wallet and I see you have 53 dollars, is it theft if I tell someone else I saw $53 dollars (one 20, three 10s and three ones). Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it to me? This analogy is totally off the mark because it involves a physical removal which is NOT what Bash did. So is the "show me the money" analogy. Here's why: The alleged "theft" was of intellectual property, not a thing like money. Try this analogy: Last Friday I saw the new Harry Potter movie at the local theater. (Excellent, btw). Suppose I had videotaped it while it was being shown - wouldn't that be theft? After all, the theater still has the film! That's a matter of copyright violation. The federal government is expressly prohibited from claiming copyright protection for materials it generates. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? It says right on the movie tickets that you're not to copy what's shown. Doesn't apply to government documentation. You and I are free to reproduce government documentation as much as we want. Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA offices all three. My High School science teacher who administered my Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to divulge the contents of the test. I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the test", Jim! The other legal question comes down to: is it legal to prohibit post test discussion. I would say "yes", *if* it's clearly explained as a condition of license grant. If not, the situation is legally murky in this nonlawyer's opinion. I think it is murky on any basis. Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in Washington to "get hot". Too late. The answer will never be known now. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. Our loss, then and ever since. A waste of tme to discuss. I disagree! It's important to understand the history and what *really* happened. But we'll never know what actually happened because there is NO record of the decision process and internal analysis the FCC might have done to determine it would not pursue any legal action against Bash. Phil Kane has his own opinions, but he's not the "higher ups" that made the final decision. You can't go back and that's the bottom line. Actually we could "go back" to FCC exams - if FCC could somehow be convinced that they were necessary. Good luck doing that one! Given the liklyhood of that happening, I'll stick with my opinion that you can't go back. One more thought: 9) The FCC may have been aware of Bash's activities, and decided that they did not really harm the ARS, even if they were technically illegal. His activities may have convinced them to make the pools public, which incidentally put him out of business because then anyone could publish them. Interesting thought. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
#8
November 24th 05, 03:17 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
An English Teacher
K4YZ wrote:
wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. Perhaps. I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license. Prison costs money. Fines generate money. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. OK..I can buy those. Any one of those explains what happened, but #3 is the big one. Maybe FCC tried to put a case together but couldn't come up with the hard evidence. It's easy for laymen to play lawyer and say what should and should not happen. But the legal folks in charge have to deal with the real world and how things may turn out. They usually have the experience and knowledge to know what is a viable case and what isn't. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their money, that's theft. If they don't want you to take it, yes, it is theft. Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it to me? Nope. Theft by force or threat of force vs. theft by stealth doesn't matter - it's still theft. But the question arises as to who did the theft, if one actually occurred. Bash did not steal exams. He did not sneak into FCC offices, etc. All he did was gather information and publish it. Whether that information was a protected secret of some kind isn't clear. It could be argued that the *real* theft, if any occurred, was done by those who gave the info to Bash. Nobody had to talk to him. Nobody had to take his money. People could have said "I'm not allowed to tell you what's on the test" or "I don't remember". For that matter, they could have been really sneaky and told him wrong information and taken his money anyway. Then his books would have been worse than useless. But more than a few people talked to him, gave him the info he wanted, and took his money. That's as bad or worse than anything he did, IMHO. Because without them, he could not have succeeded. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA offices all three. And that was when? Before or after Bash? My High School science teacher who administered my Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to divulge the contents of the test. Ah, but that was a Novice test administered by a volunteer examiner, not an FCC office test! In 1967, when I took the Novice at K3NYT's house, (Keystone Ave in Upper Darby, across from the 69th street terminal) the envelope that held the written exam was covered in specific instructions about how to administer the test and not to divulge anything. K3NYT wouldn't even look at it - he just opened the sealed envelope and gave me the papers, then when I was done put them all in the return envelope and sealed it up. In those days you could get a Novice, Tech or Conditional by mail. So it would have been a simple task for an unscrupulous person to make a copy of the written exams for those licenses. But Advanced and Extra were not so easily obtained by mail. I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the test", Jim! When I went to the FCC office in 1968 (Tech/Advanced), 1970 (Extra), and 1972 (Second 'Phone) I don't recall anybody saying anything about keeping mum about the test contents. Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in Washington to "get hot". Or it could have gone the other way and set a precedent that the exams were not protected secrets at all, and killed any hope of FCC ever having secret exams again. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. Our loss, then and ever since. Agreed, but a moot point now. FCC isn't going back to secret tests in the foreseeable future. Our main possibility is to make the pools so large that it would be easier to simply learn the material than to memorize the answers. Anyone can submit questions to the QPC, so we have no complaint unless we've submitted a bunch. btw, I'll add a few mo 6) Lack of resources. FCC was strapped for enforcement resources in the 1970s, due in large part to the cb mess, and going after Bash may have been judged to be not worth the cost. 7) Embarrassment about the tests. FCC really had only a few versions of each test. That was a big reason for the 30 day wait before retesting. Going after Bash would have simply publicized that fact even more. 73 es HT de Jim, N2EY 8) |
|
#9
November 24th 05, 04:50 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,alt.pirate.radio,alt.radio.pirate,rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
|
An English Teacher
Reposted for the guys in the Pirate Radio groups: wrote in message oups.com... K4YZ wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now. No. Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government. Yes, he did. He violated federal law in the process. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). He should have gone to prison a long time ago. IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate. Perhaps. I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license. Prison costs money. Fines generate money. The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me there are several possible explanations for that lack of action: 1) Corruption (no evidence of that) 2) Incompetence (?) 3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself. FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash was doing. OK..I can buy those. Any one of those explains what happened, but #3 is the big one. Maybe FCC tried to put a case together but couldn't come up with the hard evidence. It's easy for laymen to play lawyer and say what should and should not happen. But the legal folks in charge have to deal with the real world and how things may turn out. They usually have the experience and knowledge to know what is a viable case and what isn't. 4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself. Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their money, that's theft. If they don't want you to take it, yes, it is theft. Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it to me? Nope. Theft by force or threat of force vs. theft by stealth doesn't matter - it's still theft. But the question arises as to who did the theft, if one actually occurred. Bash did not steal exams. He did not sneak into FCC offices, etc. All he did was gather information and publish it. Whether that information was a protected secret of some kind isn't clear. It could be argued that the *real* theft, if any occurred, was done by those who gave the info to Bash. Nobody had to talk to him. Nobody had to take his money. People could have said "I'm not allowed to tell you what's on the test" or "I don't remember". For that matter, they could have been really sneaky and told him wrong information and taken his money anyway. Then his books would have been worse than useless. But more than a few people talked to him, gave him the info he wanted, and took his money. That's as bad or worse than anything he did, IMHO. Because without them, he could not have succeeded. And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA offices all three. And that was when? Before or after Bash? My High School science teacher who administered my Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to divulge the contents of the test. Ah, but that was a Novice test administered by a volunteer examiner, not an FCC office test! In 1967, when I took the Novice at K3NYT's house, (Keystone Ave in Upper Darby, across from the 69th street terminal) the envelope that held the written exam was covered in specific instructions about how to administer the test and not to divulge anything. K3NYT wouldn't even look at it - he just opened the sealed envelope and gave me the papers, then when I was done put them all in the return envelope and sealed it up. In those days you could get a Novice, Tech or Conditional by mail. So it would have been a simple task for an unscrupulous person to make a copy of the written exams for those licenses. But Advanced and Extra were not so easily obtained by mail. I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the test", Jim! When I went to the FCC office in 1968 (Tech/Advanced), 1970 (Extra), and 1972 (Second 'Phone) I don't recall anybody saying anything about keeping mum about the test contents. Was it clearly spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash. If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in Washington to "get hot". Or it could have gone the other way and set a precedent that the exams were not protected secrets at all, and killed any hope of FCC ever having secret exams again. 5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict, what he did would not have been an offense any more. It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted, will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or tried. Our loss, then and ever since. Agreed, but a moot point now. FCC isn't going back to secret tests in the foreseeable future. Our main possibility is to make the pools so large that it would be easier to simply learn the material than to memorize the answers. Anyone can submit questions to the QPC, so we have no complaint unless we've submitted a bunch. btw, I'll add a few mo 6) Lack of resources. FCC was strapped for enforcement resources in the 1970s, due in large part to the cb mess, and going after Bash may have been judged to be not worth the cost. 7) Embarrassment about the tests. FCC really had only a few versions of each test. That was a big reason for the 30 day wait before retesting. Going after Bash would have simply publicized that fact even more. 73 es HT de Jim, N2EY 8) |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Utillity freq List; | Shortwave | |||
| DX test Results | Shortwave | |||
| Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) | Policy | |||
| DX test Results | Broadcasting | |||
| DX test Results | Shortwave | |||
Hybrid Mode
