|
Any Cell Phone Eavesdroppers Out There?
I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture
and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet job. Just wanting to learn more about it. Anyone willing to talk can email me @ Thanks Michael Clarke |
Yes, but if we tell ya anything then we'd be breaking some laws.
Being in journalism, you should know this already. toplocker wrote: I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet job. Just wanting to learn more about it. Anyone willing to talk can email me @ Thanks Michael Clarke |
"toplocker" wrote in message
om... I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet job. Just wanting to learn more about it. Anyone willing to talk can email me @ Thanks Michael Clarke If you're in any kind of big city, just solicit 'on the air'. A number of years ago, analog cell days, a friend called me and started to talk on his cell about something that should have been kept secure. I told him to stop, and he asked why. I told him there could be eavesdroppers. He said no way, the cell phone company told him people couldn't listen. So we made a bet. He gave his office number out 'over the air' in the call, and we asked any listeners to call it and leave a message that they were out there. And we made a bet on it. Sam Adams at the time... As soon as we did that, he told me he was going to hang up and call his office to make sure the phone messages were clear and he'd call me back. I waited and waited. Finally he called. His office number was BUSY and he couldn't get through to his voice mail. When he finally did, he had a number of messages, seven if I recall.right, of people listening. One guy even left a message with a signal strength report and he obviously had a beam as he reported 'direction' as my friend was driving... |
Is it not now true that listening to unauthorised broadcasts was illegal? I
trhought the 'acting on information' law was old hat these days. "ScannerManInScannerLand" wrote in message . .. Yes, but if we tell ya anything then we'd be breaking some laws. Being in journalism, you should know this already. toplocker wrote: I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet job. Just wanting to learn more about it. Anyone willing to talk can email me @ Thanks Michael Clarke |
"toplocker" wrote in message
om... I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet job. Just wanting to learn more about it. Anyone willing to talk can email me @ Thanks Don't think you'll find anyone gullable enough on here to reply to you. LOL some people!.. |
MAYBE SOMEONE WHO DID IT BEFORE THE ECPA TOOK EFFECT ??
|
|
(toplocker) wrote in message . com...
I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet job. Just wanting to learn more about it. Anyone willing to talk can email me @ Thanks Michael Clarke (Note: discussions about cellular eavesdropping in this newsgroup led to the enactment of the TDDRA - what you say will be used against you!) The latest in the never-ending saga of the Gingrich ethics story is ow also a McDermott ethics story dealing with a cellular phone call. your coverage begins with a report by Kwame Holman, followed by an analysis of the technical aspects of the intercepted phone call, and a discussion with two legislators. (January 14, 1997) http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congr...ular_1-14.html - The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 was adopted to address the legal privacy issues that were evolving with the growing use of computers and other new innovations in electronic communications. The ECPA updated legislation passed in 1968 that had been designed to clarify what constitutes invasion of privacy when electronic surveillance is involved. President Reagan signed the Electronics Communication Privacy Act into law on October 21, 1986. The ECPA was designed to expand Title III privacy protection to apply to radio paging devices, electronic mail, cellular telephones, private communication carriers, and computer transmissions. The ECPA was originally endorsed by the ACLU and promoted to protect civil liberties. ----- United States Code TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 119 - WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (16) ''readily accessible to the general public'' means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not - (A) scrambled or encrypted; (B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication; (C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission; (D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or (E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio; http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2510.html ------ Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act of 1992 (TDDRA) Public Law: 102-556 (10/28/92) H.R.6191 SPONSOR: Rep Swift (introduced 10/06/92) S.1579 SPONSOR: Sen Inouye (introduced 07/29/91) http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c102query.html [H.R.6191.ENR] SEC. 403. INTERCEPTION OF CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS. -- FCC Rules: PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES Sec. 15.121 Scanning receivers and frequency converters used with scanning receivers. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, scanning receivers and frequency converters designed or marketed for use with scanning receivers, shall: (1) Be incapable of operating (tuning), or readily being altered by the user to operate, within the frequency bands allocated to the Cellular Radiotelephone Service in part 22 of this chapter (cellular telephone bands). Scanning receivers capable of ``readily being altered by the user'' include, but are not limited to, those for which the ability to receive transmissions in the cellular telephone bands can be added by clipping the leads of, or installing, a simple component such as a diode, resistor or jumper wire; replacing a plug-in semiconductor chip; or programming a semiconductor chip using special access codes or an external device, such as a personal computer. Scanning receivers, and frequency converters designed for use with scanning receivers, also shall be incapable of converting digital cellular communication transmissions to analog voice audio. (continued) http://tinyurl.com/yvs9g |
Only if the person has a speakerphone, or the volume up to much.
Then you cant help hearing them as they YELL at the caller. I hate NEXTEL (speakerphone and the beeping) and stupid people who dont turn down the volume!!!! They dont even realise they are yelling into the phone. I didnot until my wife said something. As for radio RX, that is a NO-NO On 5 May 2004 10:38:29 -0700, (toplocker) wrote: I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet job. Just wanting to learn more about it. Anyone willing to talk can email me @ Thanks Michael Clarke |
I can't think of a more stupid request !!!!
b.j. "w2rac" wrote in message ... Only if the person has a speakerphone, or the volume up to much. Then you cant help hearing them as they YELL at the caller. I hate NEXTEL (speakerphone and the beeping) and stupid people who dont turn down the volume!!!! They dont even realise they are yelling into the phone. I didnot until my wife said something. As for radio RX, that is a NO-NO On 5 May 2004 10:38:29 -0700, (toplocker) wrote: I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet job. Just wanting to learn more about it. Anyone willing to talk can email me @ Thanks Michael Clarke |
|
I love to listen to cell and cordless phones. It is only illegal in the land
of the free but not illegal in truly free countries. It is a good close look at the personal lives of other people. I have 2 radios setup that can listen to cell and a few months ago I was having coffee with some members of the local city police and gave them a demo. They just loved the way that drug dealers talk so openly on the cell system. "toplocker" wrote in message om... I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet job. Just wanting to learn more about it. Anyone willing to talk can email me @ Thanks Michael Clarke |
(toplocker) wrote ...
I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some frequency. Check http://www.mods.dk and see what scanners are cell capable. And go buy one from a pawn shop and do the mod. Do your own listening and get the story first-hand. Most cell phone systems are digitized now, so there's not as much chatter to listen to as there was several years ago. Sold my last scanner 4 years ago. No room for 'em here in the 'frigerator box. |
|
I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet job. Just wanting to learn more about it. Perhaps you should start out your writing career by learning to spell. Nevermind that cell phones are ALL digital now. There is nothing to be heard. Troll. |
JOE wrote:
Nevermind that cell phones are ALL digital now. There is nothing to be heard. Analog AMPS is still in service around here. -D -- "A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort." -Herm Albright |
In article .com,
says... Nevermind that cell phones are ALL digital now. There is nothing to be heard. Hmm I wonder what it is that Im hearing on my PRO43 then :/ Analog is still very much in use all over the place, regardless what people say. -- ----------- Dwayne http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BC895/ |
Years ago, when cell calls could be heard on
scanners without modifications etc .. back before there were CHEAP cellphone talk time plans ... when people would say, " I will call you when I get to the office or home, I am on my $$cellphone$$." I heard a man on his cell, calling a pay for phone sex number ... I thought to myself ... As expensive as this call must be, he could have hired a hooker .. Is this the wrong type of post to make here ?? Sorry if I offended anyone. -- ___________________________________ From the messy desk of: DeeVee 28°52' 925" N / 81°14'.318" W (give or take) ____________________________________ Disclaimer: I have no idea what I am talking about. "toplocker" wrote in message om... | I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture | and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some | frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet | job. Just wanting to learn more about it. | | Anyone willing to talk can email me @ | | Thanks | | Michael Clarke |
Hey Joe,
All and nothing are big words..plenty of action on my pro-2032. Perhaps you should do a little research next time. On Fri, 07 May 2004 23:50:08 GMT, "JOE" wrote: I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet job. Just wanting to learn more about it. Perhaps you should start out your writing career by learning to spell. Nevermind that cell phones are ALL digital now. There is nothing to be heard. Troll. |
Its not the drug dealers they are worried about you listening too, its there
illegal crap the cops are doing they don't wish you too hear, that's the bad cops, but the other reason is cops use cell phone to talk to each other, because there radio's suck for reception in rural areas, and if they are making a bust, they don't need those drug dealers know that they are coming. "Tony P." wrote in message .. . In article gpQmc.29564$U75.3333@edtnps89, says... I love to listen to cell and cordless phones. It is only illegal in the land of the free but not illegal in truly free countries. It is a good close look at the personal lives of other people. I have 2 radios setup that can listen to cell and a few months ago I was having coffee with some members of the local city police and gave them a demo. They just loved the way that drug dealers talk so openly on the cell system. So true. ECPA is a joke wrt to technical issues - they legislated away a technical problem. |
I have a Pro-90, and a Optoelectronic Cub RF counter, I get all the numbers
I need. ": DeeVee :" wrote in message ... Years ago, when cell calls could be heard on scanners without modifications etc .. back before there were CHEAP cellphone talk time plans ... when people would say, " I will call you when I get to the office or home, I am on my $$cellphone$$." I heard a man on his cell, calling a pay for phone sex number ... I thought to myself .. As expensive as this call must be, he could have hired a hooker .. Is this the wrong type of post to make here ?? Sorry if I offended anyone. -- ___________________________________ From the messy desk of: DeeVee 28°52' 925" N / 81°14'.318" W (give or take) ____________________________________ Disclaimer: I have no idea what I am talking about. "toplocker" wrote in message om... | I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture | and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some | frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet | job. Just wanting to learn more about it. | | Anyone willing to talk can email me @ | | Thanks | | Michael Clarke |
|
Considering cellular monitoring is a felony in the U.S. Don't be so sure
you can protect the identity of your informants. Especially under the new Patriot Act, in the name of homeland security. Bill Crocker "toplocker" wrote in message om... I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet job. Just wanting to learn more about it. Anyone willing to talk can email me @ Thanks Michael Clarke |
But in Canada the RCMP when asked about it say what where, how come, they
don't really care two bits. "Bill Crocker" wrote in message ... Considering cellular monitoring is a felony in the U.S. Don't be so sure you can protect the identity of your informants. Especially under the new Patriot Act, in the name of homeland security. Bill Crocker "toplocker" wrote in message om... I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet job. Just wanting to learn more about it. Anyone willing to talk can email me @ Thanks Michael Clarke |
Hey buttmunch - it's dead HERE. I am not THERE.
wrote in message .. . Hey Joe, All and nothing are big words..plenty of action on my pro-2032. Perhaps you should do a little research next time. On Fri, 07 May 2004 23:50:08 GMT, "JOE" wrote: I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet job. Just wanting to learn more about it. Perhaps you should start out your writing career by learning to spell. Nevermind that cell phones are ALL digital now. There is nothing to be heard. Troll. |
Then you cant help hearing them as they YELL at the caller.
probably the best placr to find those types of callers are at the movie theatres, but only while the movie is playing. ;) Before andd after the movie, they're quiet. Once the movie starts, "Oh, I'm watching this movie ahgain right now. It's the 5'th time I've seen it becaues it's so good. It ends up by the main character doing this...." and the whole plot is ruined for the rest of the people in the theatre becaues of the spoiler announced as loud as can be on a cell phone. ;) |
"Mark" wrote in message
... On Fri, 07 May 2004 01:46:01 -0400, w2rac wrote: Only if the person has a speakerphone, or the volume up to much. Then you cant help hearing them as they YELL at the caller. I hate NEXTEL (speakerphone and the beeping) and stupid people who dont turn down the volume!!!! They dont even realise they are yelling into the phone. Or the stupid Nextel users who don't realize they can shut off the loudspeaker and hold it like a normal cell phone? The difference is you just use the PTT button.... What ****es me off, is in council meetings where one individual "always" gets a Nextel call. You would think he would turn it off for the short time we meet OR tell them not to call, he won't be available or plain turn the damned thing off. That is very distracting to see and hear when important issues are being discussed. I swear, I "think" some do this crap to impress others. "I" could give a **** less. It isn't something "new" that you just "have to flash". Lou |
On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:30:32 -0400, "Lou"
etched the phosphur particles on my screen with the following: I swear, I "think" some do this crap to impress others. "I" could give a **** less. It isn't something "new" that you just "have to flash". I used to have a pager that could be programmed for an alarm call. I would always set it for about forty-five minutes into a staff meeting so that I could exit to take the call. Big Blue ;) |
Right....and give the special interest groups another reason to
pressure Congress to pass additional restrictive legislation on citizens. Shut up! toplocker wrote: I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet job. Just wanting to learn more about it. Anyone willing to talk can email me @ Thanks Michael Clarke |
It should be of interesting note to know that posts , nearly identical to this original post by " supposed " journalists ..were commonly seen on the cellular hacking NGs back in the 92 - 94 era. they were fairly common and numerous. turned out they were most often made by FBI personnel ( + possibly other government agencies ) and initially the information made it's way into reports used by the government and private manufactures to craft / draft the super strict killer FCC EE3 cellular legislation and resultant rule making. this rule making basically resulted in the death of all USA cellular hacking and was used in most of the anti-eavesdropping legislation too. it was claimed , in about '94 , that the same information gained was used by the feds to prosecute a number of people that supplied information to the posters of the requests. people thought they were protected by confidential reporter acts , when in reality they were actually inter reacting directly with federal law enforcement people and THOSE people are NOT required , by law , to be truthful with you. lieing such as claiming to be journalists is not illegal for law enforcement operatives. interesting , slightly different in these posts is that the person is seeking information strictly on ( illegal ) eavesdropping and not the so called " hacking " like posts of the earlier era. this , probably because " they " know that basic cellular hacking is dead and that only " eavesdropping " could remain. dunno what anyone , even law enforcement people , could expect to gain by this old ploy / exploit , anymore. cellular hacking is dead and analog cellular eavesdropping is experiencing the death rattle. still .......... it's good to remember the historic relationships and keep that in mind , nowadays. might also be some homeland defense people with too much time on their hands too. k.......... p.s. ....check out that email addy name .... " toplocker " ah ah ah aha ha ahaa On Sun, 30 May 2004 16:21:51 -0400, john wilson wrote: Right....and give the special interest groups another reason to pressure Congress to pass additional restrictive legislation on citizens. Shut up! toplocker wrote: I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet job. Just wanting to learn more about it. Anyone willing to talk can email me @ Thanks Michael Clarke |
john wilson wrote:
Right....and give the special interest groups another reason to pressure Congress to pass additional restrictive legislation on citizens. Shut up! Nick Wrote: It's because of **** like this that Americans are now criminals if they listen to certain radio frequencies. Let it die . Excellent idea. Do your own scanning. Drop it. Troll elsewhere. Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act of 1992 (TDDRA) Public Law: 102-556 (10/28/92) H.R.6191 SPONSOR: Rep Swift (introduced 10/06/92) S.1579 SPONSOR: Sen Inouye (introduced 07/29/91) http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c102query.html [H.R.6191.ENR] SEC. 402. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS SEC. 403. INTERCEPTION OF CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS. (a) AMENDMENT- Section 302 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 302) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: `(d)(1) Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall prescribe and make effective regulations denying equipment authorization (under part 15 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any other part of that title) for any scanning receiver that is capable of-- `(A) receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated to the domestic cellular radio telecommunications service, `(B) readily being altered by the user to receive transmissions in such frequencies, or `(C) being equipped with decoders that convert digital cellular transmissions to analog voice audio. ------ US CODE COLLECTION TITLE 47 CHAPTER 5 SUBCHAPTER III Part I Sec. 302a. Sec. 302a. - Devices which interfere with radio reception (d) Cellular telecommunications receivers (1) Within 180 days after October 28, 1992, the Commission shall prescribe and make effective regulations denying equipment authorization (under part 15 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any other part of that title) for any scanning receiver that is capable of - (A) receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated to the domestic cellular radio telecommunications service, (B) readily being altered by the user to receive transmissions in such frequencies, or (C) being equipped with decoders that convert digital cellular transmissions to analog voice audio. [CITE: 47/302a] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/302a.html -- FCC Rules: PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES-- Subpart B--Unintentional Radiators Sec. 15.121 Scanning receivers and frequency converters used with scanning receivers. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, scanning receivers and frequency converters designed or marketed for use with scanning receivers, shall: (1) Be incapable of operating (tuning), or readily being altered by the user to operate, within the frequency bands allocated to the Cellular Radiotelephone Service in part 22 of this chapter (cellular telephone bands). [CITE: 47CFR22.905] http://tinyurl.com/3ygxp -- Scanning receivers capable of ``readily being altered by the user'' include, but are not limited to, those for which the ability to receive transmissions in the cellular telephone bands can be added by clipping the leads of, or installing, a simple component such as a diode, resistor or jumper wire; replacing a plug-in semiconductor chip; or programming a semiconductor chip using special access codes or an external device, such as a personal computer. Scanning receivers, and frequency converters designed for use with scanning receivers, also shall be incapable of converting digital cellular communication transmissions to analog voice audio. (continued) [CITE: 47CFR15.121] http://tinyurl.com/3yjpt -- |
john wilson wrote:
Right....and give the special interest groups another reason to pressure Congress to pass additional restrictive legislation on citizens. Shut up! Nick Wrote: It's because of **** like this that Americans are now criminals if they listen to certain radio frequencies. Let it die . Excellent idea. Do your own scanning. Drop it. Troll elsewhere. Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act of 1992 (TDDRA) Public Law: 102-556 (10/28/92) H.R.6191 SPONSOR: Rep Swift (introduced 10/06/92) S.1579 SPONSOR: Sen Inouye (introduced 07/29/91) http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c102query.html [H.R.6191.ENR] SEC. 402. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS SEC. 403. INTERCEPTION OF CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS. (a) AMENDMENT- Section 302 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 302) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: `(d)(1) Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall prescribe and make effective regulations denying equipment authorization (under part 15 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any other part of that title) for any scanning receiver that is capable of-- `(A) receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated to the domestic cellular radio telecommunications service, `(B) readily being altered by the user to receive transmissions in such frequencies, or `(C) being equipped with decoders that convert digital cellular transmissions to analog voice audio. ------ US CODE COLLECTION TITLE 47 CHAPTER 5 SUBCHAPTER III Part I Sec. 302a. Sec. 302a. - Devices which interfere with radio reception (d) Cellular telecommunications receivers (1) Within 180 days after October 28, 1992, the Commission shall prescribe and make effective regulations denying equipment authorization (under part 15 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any other part of that title) for any scanning receiver that is capable of - (A) receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated to the domestic cellular radio telecommunications service, (B) readily being altered by the user to receive transmissions in such frequencies, or (C) being equipped with decoders that convert digital cellular transmissions to analog voice audio. [CITE: 47/302a] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/302a.html -- FCC Rules: PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES-- Subpart B--Unintentional Radiators Sec. 15.121 Scanning receivers and frequency converters used with scanning receivers. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, scanning receivers and frequency converters designed or marketed for use with scanning receivers, shall: (1) Be incapable of operating (tuning), or readily being altered by the user to operate, within the frequency bands allocated to the Cellular Radiotelephone Service in part 22 of this chapter (cellular telephone bands). [CITE: 47CFR22.905] http://tinyurl.com/3ygxp -- Scanning receivers capable of ``readily being altered by the user'' include, but are not limited to, those for which the ability to receive transmissions in the cellular telephone bands can be added by clipping the leads of, or installing, a simple component such as a diode, resistor or jumper wire; replacing a plug-in semiconductor chip; or programming a semiconductor chip using special access codes or an external device, such as a personal computer. Scanning receivers, and frequency converters designed for use with scanning receivers, also shall be incapable of converting digital cellular communication transmissions to analog voice audio. (continued) [CITE: 47CFR15.121] http://tinyurl.com/3yjpt -- |
Zephyr_Mark_Two schrieb: Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act of 1992 (TDDRA) Public Law:... Some may realize that these are international english language newsgroups. So there is no relevance of US laws to many readers. f'up2 alt.radio.scanner |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com