"Dave Hall" wrote:

If I was standing on the street, and
you walked up to me, are you not
permitted to make whatever
comment you see fit? There is this
thing called the 1st amendment......
So why should it be any different
through a radio? (snip)


There are limits to free speech, Dave. In this case, the answer would be
no if the comments were slanderous, defamatory, racist, or done in a
threatening or harassing manner. Making unwelcomed comments about a person's
appearence (especially when transmitted over the public airways) could be
considered harassment, and I doubt the First Amendment would protect such
actions.


That depends. If the business was
employing FCC part 15 radio gear,
then they can expect no protection
from interference. (snip)


That addresses normal interference, not the intentional act of malicious
interference. Malicious interference is a violation of FCC rules. And, in
case you're wondering, the First Amendment would not protect a person here
either - the person would not be charged for what was said, but for doing so
in a manner (using equipment, etc) which violates FCC rules.


Maybe. I guess it all depends on
the level of malice and the effect
that the disruptions had. From
what I've heard, the interference
consisted mostly of random
insulting comments, and not
necessarily jamming of the system
in a way that would prevent it
from working.


This brings another issue into question. Some states have laws to protect
the normal operations of a business - to prevent malicious interference with
that. It is also possible these laws, if available, might come into play
here.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article , Dave Hall
writes:

I don't know all the pertinent details of this issue. But it's also
possible that the "drive thru" system which was "hacked" ( I hate
using computer terms to describe radio actions) was on the older 154
Mhz frequency band. One of those drive thru frequencies, in common use
in my area, is now part of the MURS allocation. Since MURS radios are
legal to be used, the only possible infraction that the FCC could
bring in this case, would be deliberate interference.

Only true if Burger King was using a MURS frequency, which I doubt. All the
Burger Kings I have found (those which have not yet migrated to 900Mhz) are on
154.515 or 154.540Mhz.

Neither of these are MURS frequencies. Both are licensed business radio
service frequencies.

(SamHuiFan) wrote:
"Roger Gt" wrote in message
om...
"Joe Prion" wrote in message
"kiebassa 20" wrote in message
from:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm...ws.latestheadl
ines

I can't believe they may be prosecuted if they're caught. They are
preventing people from becoming more obese and getting heart attacks,
high cholesterol, high blood pressure and mad cow disease. They are
true
heroes,
not criminals.

Like Murderers who prevent people from suffering the effects of old
age? True Heroes all!

Yeah, sure!

You are dense as a doornail. You would make an awesome target of such
a prank. Hope to see you at the drive-through soon Dork.

You're right, he'd jump out of his skin if the drive thru speaker
asked him to "order something besides a whopper this time, lard-ass".

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Dave Hall wrote:
Local Law enforcement can charge them with
"Malicious mischief" or other related infractions due to the intervention of
these transmissions with the operation of someone else's business.

That depends. If the business was employing FCC part 15 radio gear,
then they can expect no protection from interference. People tried
running businesses on CB radio years ago, and those same people had to
deal with the traffic from other users, much of which could be
considered "disruptive"

You will find that these radio-links to the ordering menu microphone back to the
food establishment are NOT part 15 but do have low power business licenses
issued for exclusive allocations. Obviously, you haven't bothered to take the
time to even research the truth of the situation.

court issued restraining order prohibiting them from operating a radio
within range of any commercial operation for the purpose of disrupting the
normal operation of that business. It is done all the time with Loiters
and other disruptive acts!

Maybe. I guess it all depends on the level of malice and the effect
that the disruptions had. From what I've heard, the interference
consisted mostly of random insulting comments, and not necessarily
jamming of the system in a way that would prevent it from working.

Don't guess. LEARN the facts first.

In article , "Rodney" writes:

Yes indeed! An "enterprising ham" (or anybody else) with a Yaesu Ft-2400,
FT-2500, or even the dual banders can clip a wire, desolder a jumper and be
good to go up to and above 164 mhz.

164? That's nothin! Alinco handhelds go all the way to 174.


For instance. It is all too easy to modify one of these rigs to transmit on
154, 155, or higher freqs. All one needs is an antenna that handles these
frequencies without causing the protection circuit to dump the radio. A Rad
Shack discone is one such antenna....

Better yet: an antenna cut to resonance. Since 154Mhz is a popular business
frequency, antennas designed to transmit here are inexpensive and easy-to-find.

While amateur equipment is capable of operating as you suggest, it is no
more likely that you commiting rape because you have the equipment.

Hams have a license to loose if they partake in such nonsense.

"SouthDakotaRadio" wrote in message
...
In article , "Rodney"
writes:

Yes indeed! An "enterprising ham" (or anybody else) with a Yaesu Ft-2400,
FT-2500, or even the dual banders can clip a wire, desolder a jumper and
be
good to go up to and above 164 mhz.

164? That's nothin! Alinco handhelds go all the way to 174.


For instance. It is all too easy to modify one of these rigs to transmit
on
154, 155, or higher freqs. All one needs is an antenna that handles these
frequencies without causing the protection circuit to dump the radio. A
Rad
Shack discone is one such antenna....

Better yet: an antenna cut to resonance. Since 154Mhz is a popular
business
frequency, antennas designed to transmit here are inexpensive and
easy-to-find.

In article , "W4JLE" w4jle(remove to
writes:

While amateur equipment is capable of operating as you suggest, it is no
more likely that you commiting rape because you have the equipment.

Hams have a license to loose if they partake in such nonsense.

Are you telling me that it's unusual for hams to operate (illegaly)
out-of-band?

(Trying to stop choking from uncontrollable fits of laughter.)

Consider the number of hams who use their dual-banders on the FRS and GMRS
channels...or the number of hams who use their HF rigs on the CB band.

I would dare say that *most* hams partake in such behavior at least
occasionally.

Not condoning it, just stating that it does happen...and happens frequently.

Likely some of the new no code types that can't give up there 11 meter ways.

Let me re-phrase, no REAL ham would do it.

"SouthDakotaRadio" wrote in message
...
In article , "W4JLE" w4jle(remove to
writes:

While amateur equipment is capable of operating as you suggest, it is no
more likely that you commiting rape because you have the equipment.

Hams have a license to loose if they partake in such nonsense.

Are you telling me that it's unusual for hams to operate (illegaly)
out-of-band?

(Trying to stop choking from uncontrollable fits of laughter.)

Consider the number of hams who use their dual-banders on the FRS and GMRS
channels...or the number of hams who use their HF rigs on the CB band.

I would dare say that *most* hams partake in such behavior at least
occasionally.

Not condoning it, just stating that it does happen...and happens
frequently.

Funny that - know of more than the odd "real" hams who use their amateur
gear on out of band frequencies - and yes they hold the VK equivalent of an
exra class licence, and I know of US amateurs (amongst many others) who have
come here to VK who have used their amateur gear on out of band
allocations - be it HF or VHF/UHF. I suggest that the licence class or
whether they have passed a CW test has absolutely no bearing on amateurs
behaviour or likelyhood to use amateur gear out of the allocated bands.





Matt

"W4JLE" w4jle(remove to wrote in message
...
Likely some of the new no code types that can't give up there 11 meter
ways.

Let me re-phrase, no REAL ham would do it.

"SouthDakotaRadio" wrote in message
...
In article , "W4JLE" w4jle(remove to
writes:

While amateur equipment is capable of operating as you suggest, it is
no
more likely that you commiting rape because you have the equipment.

Hams have a license to loose if they partake in such nonsense.

Are you telling me that it's unusual for hams to operate (illegaly)
out-of-band?

(Trying to stop choking from uncontrollable fits of laughter.)

Consider the number of hams who use their dual-banders on the FRS and
GMRS
channels...or the number of hams who use their HF rigs on the CB band.

I would dare say that *most* hams partake in such behavior at least
occasionally.

Not condoning it, just stating that it does happen...and happens
frequently.

Likely some of the new no code types that can't give up there 11 meter ways.

you are wrong. These were REAL ham radio operators doing all of that higly
illegal stuff, both radio-related and non-radio related.

As I said, the ones I know about above happened about a decade or two decases
ago. (their highly illegal activities crossed from one decadee to the other.
the 80's and 90's and they are probably still at it), and that was WAY before
the FCC ever passed the law that allows no-code ham radio operators.

so these ham radio operators that were involved in committing highly illegal
activities did indeed study the Morse Code requirements and learned it ( or
else they would never have gotten the ham radio liscences that they have).

These code-learned ham radio operators were involved in highly ilegal
activities, both radio-related activities and non-radio related activities.

and these criminals got away with it!!!!!!!!!!! Just because they knew a lot
of influential people around here since they used their ham liscenes to these
people as "proof that they're not criminnals since no hams would cxommit any
criminal act and all hams always do only what is legal". whooo-hooo!!! What a
laugh. I know MUCH better now.

By the way, I'm one of those who would take the no-code liscence, but I always
try to stay on the legal side of the law, unlike those paarticual code-learned
hams who committed a BUNCH of HIGHLY illegal acts.

so that blows your theory of no-code ham operators being the kind of hamds who
would do that .

And it also blows your theory of no code-learnned hams would ever commit
illegal activities.