💾 Archived View for dfdn.info › dfdn › chatter.gmi captured on 2024-05-26 at 14:47:07. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-11-14)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From the Associated Press, as reported in the {Los Angeles Times},
Sunday, January 1, 1995:
Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges
Memphis, Tenn. - A woman listening to a police scanner she had gotten
for Christmas picked up a conversation over cordless telephones and
heard what turned out to be a murder plot unfolding, investigators
say.
Donna McGee tipped sheriff's deputies to what she had heard, and on
Thursday a woman and her boyfriend were arrested and accused of conspiring
to kill the woman's husband and make it look like a burglary gone awry.
"It appears their motive was to collect the insurance money and get
out of debt, and for them to continue their lives together," said
Sheriff's Capt. Joe Ball.
Jacqueline Lee Greene, 32, and Christopher Scott Davis, 21, were charged
with conspiracy to murder her husband, James Kenneth Greene. Davis
was also charged with criminal attempt to commit murder.
McGee said the scanner chatter she heard Wednesday caught her attention fast.
"I heard this man say: 'Are you sure you want to go through with
this?' She said she was sure, and asked him if he was sure," McGee
said Friday. "She asked him: 'Do you really love me enough to kill
for me?' He said: 'Yes, I do. Do you have any doubts?'"
The man and woman talked about having Davis enter the Greene house
through a window, McGee said.
"She said if he came through the unlocked patio door, there wouldn't
be any sign of forced entry," McGee said. "She said: 'If you come
through the window, Kenny will hear you and he'll come and that's when
you shoot him.'"
By this time some of McGee's family was listening. When the woman on
the scanner called her daughter, McGee's daughter recognized a playmate's
name. Eventually, the McGees said, they realized the identity of the
intended victim.
Greene "was just absolutely amazed, scared, shocked" when sheriff's
deputies informed him of the plot against him, Ball said.
Cordless telephones use radio waves to communicate between the handset
and the base. Those radio waves can easily be intercepted by a police
scanner.
Christopher Zguris's profile photo
Christopher Zguris
Jan 5, 1995, 10:12:00 PM
to
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's the first time I have ever heard
of cordless phone monitoring being dismissed as 'nothing illegal' because
it was 'random scanning'. You'd think they would rely on previous court
decisions stating that cordless phones do not have the same protection
as cellular phones ... or something ... but isn't all scanner listening
===============================
essentially 'random'? PAT]
====================
Once you have a scanner programmed to scan 46-49 MHz and find a
neighbor(s) cordless phone, you're going to keep the scanner
programmed for that range. The only thing in the cordless-phone
frequency range are cordless phones, no police, no EMS, no fire
department, no Secret Service, no FBI, no broadcasts from Air Force
One (Okay, cordless baby monitors, wireless headphones, and wireless
intercoms and other stuff like that also broadcast in that range). If
someone has their scanner set in _that_ range they're probably looking
for cordless phones, no? Of course, wireless headphones _also_ use
that range, maybe _that's_ what is being "randomly" scanned for :-) ?
Cell phones are another matter, a listener with a scanner modified to
get that range will hear little "snippets" of conversations before the
phone changes frequencies or cells, that's definately "random". But as
for cordless phones, most/all will stay on the same frequency for the
entire call, much to the delight of the avid snooper with nothing
better to do.
Christopher Zguris czg...@mcimail.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The most bizarre instance of this I have
yet to encounter or hear about was reported to me the other day. It seems
some old biddy with nothing better to do was listening in on her neighbor
using her cordless phone via her scanner. She overheard what she believed
was this woman discussing a plan to murder someone and she reported it to
the police. The cops had a big raid of the house, lots of hoopla, the
whole routine. It turns out the neighbor and the person she was talking
with were *rehearsing lines for a school play they were both in*. They
were reading their scripts over the phone and learning their lines. The
cops let it slip out who it was that called them; now Biddy has something
else to do with her time and money. She had to hire an attorney to
defend herself in a suit against her for bearing false witness against
her neighbor.
Cordless phone monitoring is merely the 1990's version of what nosy people
used to do many years ago, long before cordless phones were invented and
when four and eight party telephone lines were common. In those days -- I
am talking 1930-50 now -- when several people shared the same telephone
pair in a 'party line' arrangement, the ringing voltage for the bell was
sent at different frequencies (or electrical cycles) so that one bell on
the party line would ring but the rest would not. The trouble is, all the
other bell clappers would give a slight 'tick' when the ringing voltage
came down the line. Unless you were standing right next to the phone
listening closely, you'd never hear the 'tick' from your bell clapper
when someone else's phone was actually ringing. The way the snoops
overcame that 'problem' was to set their phone instrument inside a
galvanized wash-tub. That would amplify the 'click' by several magnitudes
so that wherever they were in their house, on their front porch or
whatever, they would hear it. Someone down the street gets a phone
call; everyone else on the block would hear that 'click click' from
their own phone. Remember, these were the very old-fashioned, all
steel, very heavy desk phones of the 1940's. When they heard that
clicking from the bell clapper, in their house they would go, if they
were not there already, and soon the legitimate called party would
have two or three eavesdroppers on the instruments at their homes
listening to the conversation, typically with a rag over the mouthpiece
to cover up background noise at their end.
When I was twelve years old, I had a freind who was the same age. We
had a private line but his parents had a four-party line. We would
call each other from time to time and have the sort of conversations
on the phone that twelve year old boys have with each other. One day
the call got sort of raunchy from his end, and right in the middle
of it came that unmistakeable click of a reciever somewhere going
off hook. Most party line subscribers were courteous; they would say
'excuse me' and replace their recievers, or maybe just hang up without
speaking, but at least you heard that *second* click to assure yourself
they were gone from the line. This time the off hook click was heard
and I started to shush my friend. "Better shut up! Someone's listening."
"Oh," he said gleefully, "that's just Mrs. Winchell. That old witch
has been our party line neighbor for years! Why, if she doesn't know
everything we do and talk about over here by now, she never will find
out!" ... pause, shocked silence on my end ... then that awaited second
click as Mrs. Winchell replaced her receiver. PAT]
Benjamin P. Carter's profile photo
Benjamin P. Carter
Jan 6, 1995, 3:27:40 AM
to
Paul_Glog...@xerox.com writes:
Cordless telephones use radio waves to communicate between the handset
and the base. Those radio waves can easily be intercepted by a police
scanner.
Ball said there was nothing illegal in McGee's listening to the cordless
phone conversations because it was a random scanning.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's the first time I have ever heard
of cordless phone monitoring being dismissed as 'nothing illegal' because
it was 'random scanning'. You'd think they would rely on previous court
decisions stating that cordless phones do not have the same protection
as cellular phones ... or something ... but isn't all scanner listening
essentially 'random'? PAT]
It's random within the categories (police, fire, airport, etc.)
corresponding to allocated frequency bands. At least it's random when
you first turn the scanner on. After a while, though, you will have
learned which specific frequencies are of interest, and you can set
the scanner to ignore all other frequencies.
I believe it's illegal for a store to sell a scanner capable of
picking up cellular phone conversations. Cordless phones however can
listen in on each other if they are nearby; and any law to prevent
scanners from picking up those frequencies would not really insure
privacy of cordless phone conversations.
Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges
6 views
Subscribe
Joel B Levin's profile photo
Joel B Levin
Jan 5, 1995, 3:03:13 PM
to
In article <telecom...@eecs.nwu.edu> Paul_Glog...@xerox.com writes:
Ball said there was nothing illegal in McGee's listening to the cordless
phone conversations because it was a random scanning.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's the first time I have ever heard
of cordless phone monitoring being dismissed as 'nothing illegal' because
it was 'random scanning'. You'd think they would rely on previous court
decisions stating that cordless phones do not have the same protection
as cellular phones ... or something ... but isn't all scanner listening
essentially 'random'? PAT]
You're kidding, right? This is policeman ("Sheriff Capt.") talking,
not a lawyer or judge. Count on the court decisions coming up when
the defense starts arguing in court.
Regards,
JBL
Ben Carter internet address: b...@netcom.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only is it illegal for a store to
sell such units, it is often times against corporate policy to even
discuss the possibility of modification. Take Radio Shack as one
example: it used to be when you bought any kind of radio from them,
whether it was a CB, or a scanner, the clerks took much delight in
handing you a customer-prepared ('a customer brought it in and left
it here', or so they claimed) 'mod sheet' telling how to do the
various mods to their equipment. In the era of CB, the mods would be
to get the radio up to ten meters (what traces to cut on the board
and what chips had to have pins held high; and what cores to adjust
to get the radio to oscillate [or 'key-up'] when you got it that far
off the original center frequency); with the old crystal-controlled
scanners the mods handed out by RS clerks would discuss ways of
swapping out the master crystal with another one to get 'secret
frequencies'; with one of their very early digital scanners there
was a programming error in the ROM which allowed the user to punch
in the decimal point a couple extra times and get the scanner to
receive stuff in the 350-400 megs area -- now commonplace in scanners
but back then 'secret government radio stations' -- oh, the RS clerks
knew them all. Then about ten years ago as 800 meg scanners were
becoming more common, those mysterious mod sheets ("I dunno who left
it here in the store, but we made some copies for customers ..")
discussed how to change RS scanners to pick up cellular phones by
clipping a diode here and there.
But then the feds came to Fort Worth one day with a blunt message
for all concerned: "Can the shit!" said the FCC. You betcha! Within
a few days a memo was hanging on the back wall in the office of
every Radio Shack store which said there would be no further discussion
of 'mods' with customers under any circumstances. Not only that, if
the customer mentioned making mods, the clerk was to *decline the
sale* rather than possibly be later found to be part of a conspiracy
or a scheme. And they are serious about it. RS corporate policy now
is any clerk who so much as discusses with a customer the possibility
that an item sold by RS might concievably be used in an illegal way
is subject to discharge. No bull or backtalk about freedom of speech
and all that. They are *so* serious about this policy now that about
six months ago, they pulled their two top-of-the-line scanners off
the market for retrofitting when someone found out there was another
programming error in the ROM that customers could 'abuse'. And where
before all their CB radios were using the Motorola 02-A chip for channel
(or frequency) selection (or sometimes a similar chip from Uniden), now
all that stuff is in the ROM, or read-only memory.
The feds got after Motorola on account of that 02-A chip also, and
the FCC made them quit manufacturing it. Easily programmable with a snip
snip here and a drop of solder there, all the guys were using them for
pirate radios. Uniden also got a rap on the knuckles from Uncle when
the company came out with its 'Digi-Scan' unit. PAT]
Steve Brack's profile photo
Steve Brack
Jan 6, 1995, 1:46:06 PM
to
{} in quoted text are mine. - SSB
In article <telecom...@eecs.nwu.edu> Paul_Glog...@xerox.com
wrote:
From the Associated Press, as reported in the {Los Angeles Times},
Sunday, January 1, 1995:
Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges
Memphis, Tenn. - A woman listening to a police scanner she had gotten
for Christmas picked up a conversation over cordless telephones and
heard what turned out to be a murder plot unfolding, investigators
say.
Cordless telephones use radio waves to communicate between the handset
and the base. Those radio waves can easily be intercepted by a police
scanner.
Ball {a police official} said there was nothing illegal in McGee's listening
to the cordless phone conversations because it was a random scanning.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's the first time I have ever heard
of cordless phone monitoring being dismissed as 'nothing illegal' because
it was 'random scanning'. You'd think they would rely on previous court
decisions stating that cordless phones do not have the same protection
as cellular phones ... or something ... but isn't all scanner listening
essentially 'random'? PAT]
Courtesy of t...@gate.net (Terry Steinford)
Public Law 103-414 signed Oct 25, 1994 (was H.R. 4922)
SEC. 202. CORDLESS TELEPHONES.
(a) Definitions. - Section 2510 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended -
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `, but such term does not
include` and all that follows through `base unit`; and
(2) in paragraph (12), by striking subparagraph (A) and
redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) as subparagraphs
(A), (B), and (C), respectively.
(b) Penalty. - Section 2511 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended -
(1) in subsection (4)(b)(i) by inserting `a cordless
telephone communication that is transmitted between the
cordless telephone handset and the base unit,` after `cellular
telephone communication,`; and
(2) in subsection (4)(b)(ii) by inserting `a cordless
telephone communication that is transmitted between the
cordless telephone handset and the base unit,` after `cellular
telephone communication,`.
With a nip here and a tuck there, apparently the government has made
listening in on cordless phones illegal.
Steve Brack, Consultant sbr...@eng.utoledo.edu
Toledo, OH 43613-1605 sbr...@cse.utoledo.edu
MY OWN OPINIONS Tel: +1 419 534 7349
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, this is news to me. I guess we
should all take note that listening to cordless phones is now just
as illegal as listening to cellular. I had not been aware until now
that the law had been changed to include cordless. Anyone else? PAT]
Richard Jay Solomon's profile photo
Richard Jay Solomon
Jan 7, 1995, 9:32:35 PM
to
Patrick:
In Digest #9 you ran an AP story, "Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to
Criminal Charges." Is your bracketed comment in #11 that this was an
overheard play rehearsal related to the original story? Am I missing
something here? I never saw an official press item about the play
rehearsal, just your bracketed comments?
Richard Solomon
[TELECOM Digest Egitor's Note: That part (the overhearing of play
rehersal and the inappropriate actions taken) was a separate incident
not related at all to the originally reported event. PAT]
Gary Sanders's profile photo
Gary Sanders
Jan 8, 1995, 6:18:23 PM
to
In article <telecom...@eecs.nwu.edu>, Christopher Zguris <0004854540@
mcimail.com> wrote:
Cell phones are another matter, a listener with a scanner modified to
get that range will hear little "snippets" of conversations before the
phone changes frequencies or cells, that's definately "random". But as
for cordless phones, most/all will stay on the same frequency for the
entire call, much to the delight of the avid snooper with nothing
better to do.
You have been listening to to many cell phone sales guys. First, many
scanners don't need to be modified (although new ones may) to listen to
cell phones. They come out of the box with cellular. As for snippets I
would beg to differ, I know some one who is an active cell listner
(-:)) and depending on your local cell configuration you will hear
most of all phone calls that are placed. "my friend" listened to
someone trying to explain how secure a cell phone is becuase its
allways changing freq. Was interesting considering the entire call
was 15 minutes long and never changed cells/freq.
As for me, I dont have a scanner. I have an R7000 communications
receiver -:)
Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR) gary.w....@att.com
AT&T Bell Labs 614.860.5965
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know where you shop, but all the
Radio Shack units make a point of cutting out the cellular frequencies.
So do quite a few others, and they have for a few years now. PAT]
Michael J Graven's profile photo
Michael J Graven
Jan 8, 1995, 6:27:23 PM
to
Pat wrote:
Cordless phone monitoring is merely the 1990's version of what nosy people
used to do many years ago. [...]
I am reminded of my great-uncle, who lived on an out-of-the-way farm
near Shepherdsville, Kentucky, in the early part of the century.
According to his sister, my grandmother, their house was the first
drop on the loop ("two shorts on six, please, operator.") Dwight
appeared to be a bit ahead of his time: he inserted a knife switch
into the loop after the home telephone so he could cut off the
eavesdroppers while he was talking with his girlfriend.
A man after your own heart, Pat.
Michael J. Graven m...@ulysses.homer.att.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Telco used or uses the same concept to
afford absolute privacy from being overheard by extensions on the same
line. They call it an 'exclusion key'. Remember the old two-line turn
button phones and how the switchook plunger on the left side was made
a little differently than the one on the right side? You would lift it
to put the line you were *not* talking on on hold ... well some single
line phones had that funny plunger on the left side also, but in those
cases it would split the pair. To provide an exclusion, one of the
phones on the premises had to serve as the 'master phone'. The pair from
the telephone exchange came to that instrument first. It came in on
the first (red/green) pair, the looped back out on the second (yellow/
black) pair. Lifting that plunger a quarter inch or so forced a couple
of metal contacts inside the phone to spread apart, thus preventing the
loop out from ever getting out of the phone. From the phone it went
out on the second pair, *then* back to the demarc where normal distribu-
tion began. When the user of the master phone wanted no one else to hear
what was being said, he would raise that plunger; instantly all the other
extensions in the house went dead.
When old style answering services were very common, and a subscriber line
was simply bridged or jumpered in the central office to a pair going to
the answering service, exclusion keys were used a lot so the answering
service would not 'see' your calls. It was the same principle, but an
'exclusion switch' would generally be mounted near the front door of
your premises. The CO sent your calls in on a pair; someway or another
it got looped back through that switch mounted near your front door,
and back to the CO for the jumper to the answering service. When you came
in you were expected to remember to flip that switch one way, to cut
off the extension going to the answering service. When you left for lunch
for for the day or the weekend or whatever you were expected to remember
to flip the switch the other way, thus putting the answering service
back on line for your calls. PAT]
Bill Sohl Budd Lake's profile photo
Bill Sohl Budd Lake
Jan 9, 1995, 4:15:51 AM
to
In response to several prior comments, Pat wrote:
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only is it illegal for a store to
sell such units, it is often times against corporate policy to even
discuss the possibility of modification.
Pat, the sale of such scanners is NOT illegal, see my proposed FAQ
on this subject below.
but back then 'secret government radio stations' -- oh, the RS clerks
knew them all. Then about ten years ago as 800 meg scanners were
becoming more common, those mysterious mod sheets ("I dunno who left
it here in the store, but we made some copies for customers ..")
discussed how to change RS scanners to pick up cellular phones by
clipping a diode here and there.
But then the feds came to Fort Worth one day with a blunt message
for all concerned: "Can the shit!" said the FCC. You betcha!
Maybe that was true, maybe not, regardless, all the MODS are readily
available today and are often written up in publications such as
"Monitoring Times" and other communications hobbyist magazines.
Within a few days a memo was hanging on the back wall in the office
of every Radio Shack store which said there would be no further
discussion of 'mods' with customers under any circumstances. Not only
that, if the customer mentioned making mods, the clerk was to *decline
the sale* rather than possibly be later found to be part of a
conspiracy or a scheme.
What kind of "conspiracy"? Not meant as a flame, but other than
modifying CBs for out-of-frequency operation or for illegally
increasing the CBs power, modifying most other equipment such as
scanners violates nothing.
The above response by Pat, comp.dcom,telecom moderator, contained a
few errors with regard to the sale of equipment (i.e. scanners) that
can or could be used to listen to cellular telephone calls. To
clarify things a bit, here's the current perspective on the laws that
affect the actual act of listening versus the equipment that might be
used to listen.
I have written this as a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) which
I offer to Pat (or anyone else) to use as they see fit.
FAQ: Listening to CELLULAR or CORDLESS Telephone Conversations
Version 0.1 (draft), last updated 1/8/94
Send any suggested text changes/corrections updates to Bill Sohl.
email: bill...@planet.net
Q1 - Is it illegal to listen to CELLULAR telephone converstaions?
YES - The 1986 Electronics Communication Privacy Act made it illegal for
anyone to listen to cellular telephone conversations. Doing so since
then has been and still is a federal violaion of the ECPA.
Q2 - Did the 1986 ECPA impact the legality of scanners and/or other radio
receivers that can be used to receive CELLULAR telephone conversations
(segments of the 800 MHz band)?
NO - The ECPA did NOT in any way make it illegal to own, manufacture,
import, sell or personally built yourself, the equipment that could be
used to listen to cellular telephone calls.
Q3 - Didn't manufacturers alter their scanner designs to exclude the
CELLULAR frequencies?
YES - Some manufacturers did modify their line of scanners to eliminate
the ability to receive or tune to cellular frequencies (e.g. the Tandy
line of Radio Shack scanners). Even in the case of those manufacturers
that changed their design to eliminate the CELLULAR frequencies, the
design change usually was a simple memory lock-out that was easily
"restored" by simply clipping a diode inside the scanner. Additionally,
some other manufacturers continued to offer radio receivers and scanners
that covered the entire spectrum of frequencies including celllar (800
MHz).
Q4 - Are manufacturers still making scanners that can receive CELLULAR?
NO, not in the USA - As mentioned above, the original ECPA legislation
in no way made such equipment illegal The current REGULATIONS covering
radio scanning receivers (i.e. the receiving equipment) came about by
order of Congress in 1993 (at the prompting of the CELLULAR industry)
to force the Federal Communications Commission to promulgate design
requirements to eliminate "Scanner" manufacturers from making or
importing scanners which could receive CELLULAR frequencies. The FCC
did promulgate such rules and as of April 26, 1994 it became illegal
to manufacture or import any scanner which could receive CELLULAR
frequencies OR which could be "easily modified" to receive cellular
frequencies.
Q5 - How come scanners are still being advertised for sale as being
capable of receiving CELLULAR?
It is important to note that the FCC design rules impact only NEW
equipment built or imported after April 26, 1994. Thus, any store
which has any existing stocks of "pre-4/26/94" CELLULAR capable
scanners can continue to sell them until they have no more stock.
Q6 - What is the legality of owning a scanner that can receive CELLULAR?
It is perfectly legal. None of the already existing scanners in the
USA (probably a million or more) which can receive CELLULAR or be
easily modified to receive CELLULAR are illegal to own or sell. Thus,
it is perfectly legal to offer for sale any scanners which may be
cellular capable and where built before the 4/26/94 FCC deadline.
Q7 - Is it illegal to modify a scanner so it can receive CELLULAR?
NO - There is no law which makes it illegal to modify an existing
radio (or scanner) to receive CELLULAR...or, for that matter if one
has the technical ability to do so, from building their own CELLULAR
receiver from scratch. The FCC regulations against manufacture and
importation are design requirements placed on MANUFACTURERS and not on
individuals who might construct their own radio receiving equipment,
even if it happens to be capable of receiving CELLULAR.
Q7 - What are converters which make it possible to receive CELLULAR
frequencies on scanners that can't receive CELLULAR?
Converters (AKA block converters) receive a range of frequencies and
convert them to another range of frequencies. A CELLULAR converter
typically will receive the entire 800-900MHz band and convert it to a
range of 400-500MHz which can easily be received by almost any scanner
ever built.
Q8 - Are converters for CELLULAR illegal to manufacture or import?
YES - The same FCC April 26, 1994 deadline for CELLULAR capable
scanners also affected CELLULAR Converter manufacture and importation.
BUT ... the design and construction of a block converter involves, in
general electronic terms, a relatively trivial circuit. Today there
are several converter "kits" on the market which provide to the
purchaser the circuit design, a how to set of instructions and all the
electronic components to build such a converter themselves with just a
small soldering iron.
Q9 - What about listening to CORDLESS telephone conversations?
A late 1994 congressional action amended the ECPA's listening
prohibition to now include CORDLESS phones. Prior to that change, it
was completely legal (except in a handful of states with state laws
prohibiting CORDLESS listening) to listen to CORDLESS telephone
conversations. With the amended ECPA, it is now illegal on a federal
basis (and thus everywhere in the USA) to listen to CORDLESS telephone
conversations as well as CELLULAR conversations.
Q10 - What about scanners that can receive CORDLESS frequencies.
There are no design regulations which prohibit the manufacture or
importation of scanners that can receive the CORDLESS frequenices.
Unlike CELLULAR frequencies which are in the Ultra High Frequency
(UHF) range which was not included in many inexpensive scanners, the
CORDLESS frequencies (46-49 MHz) are in the Very High Frequency (VHF)
range and can be received by literally EVERY scanner ever made
(probably several million).
Q11 - Will it ever be illegal to own receivers (scanners) that can
recieve CELLULAR and/or CORDLESS frequencies?
Speculative answer follows: In as much as there are millions of such
recievers/scanners already legally owned, it is quite unlikely that
any federal or state law would be passed that would make such
equipment illegal to own and, therefor, force peole to turn in to some
government entity. This is further underscored by the fact that the
CORDLESS and CELLULAR frequencies are only a small segment of the
frequencies that are receivable by any scanner and thus all such
scanners have numerous legal listening capabiliies (police, fire,
rescue, amateur radio, TV, aircraft, etc.) despite their ability to be
used illegally to listen to either CORDLESS or CELLULAR frequencies.
Q12 - How effective are these laws in stopping people from listening
(eavesdropping) on CELLULAR or CORDLESS conversations?
Probably not very effective at all. Since millions of receivers/scanners
exist already, such listening, although illegal, probably goes on all
the time. Illegal listening is impossible to detect and thus
impossible to stop. The only possible way to learn of someone
eavesdropping on CORDLESS or CELLULAR is if the individual admits
doing so on their own and that isn't very unlikely.
Q13 - Should I be concerned that my CORDLESS or CELLULAR conversation is
being listened to?
The probability that any individual call is being listened to is very
low, however, it makes good sense to treat any CORDLESS or CELLULAR
conversation as if it was being listened to .. .don't discuss highly
confidential information (especially credit card numbers) on such
calls.
Q14 - Will CELLULAR or CORDLESS conversations ever be safe from
eavesdropping?
If and only if such calls are encrypted will any measure of increased
security be available to users. The technology is available, but the
deployment of encryption will take time and require current users to
change their equipment (their current non-encrypted CORDLESS and
CELLULAR telephones).
-----end of FAQ-----
Bill Sohl K2UNK (Budd lake, New Jersey) (bill...@planet.net)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are wrong on a couple things, however
that is because of confusion over contradictory laws. Aside from what
the Electronic Commuications Privacy Act says, the Federal Communications
Commission addresses the question of radios which have been modified.
Illegal modification (i.e. modification by an unlicensed person) voids
your FCC authority to operate the radio. Furthermore, no *licensed*
person is going to make illegal modifications to a radio and risk having
such handiwork be traced back to his bench, at the possible risk of his
loss of his license. Quoting from memory from a conversation over a year
ago with Bill Bartels, District Sales Manager for Radio Shack for the
northern district of Illinois (this does not include Chicago, considered
a district of its own), after seeing the memorandum sent to RS store
managers on this topic, I noted to Mr. Bartels that 'it looks to me like
the feds put some heat on RS corporate in Fort Worth ...' and he responded
that he and several of the DSMs and RSMs (District and Regional Sales
Managers) had met in Fort Worth when 'the topic came up', and 'I would
have to say you are correct, but I cannot discuss it further ...'.
There was no EPCA discussion in this, other than as it coincidentally
occurred. It was simply a case of the FCC telling Radio Shack to 'get
your clerks to quit screwing around with all this illegal stuff', and
Tandy's attornies were sufficiently impressed with what they had been
instructed by the FCC that down through channels it went. The store here
in Skokie has it hanging in the office in back; a newspaper account of
some company which got banged hard by the FCC; a memo from Tandy to the
RSM/DSM people (that's the *only* people corporate speaks with; they
never deal direct with the store managers, and certainly never the
clerks, that is the job of the DSM's), and the manager's note to his
employees: "*NEVER* discuss illegal mods with any customer for any
reason."
The 'conspiracy connection': the law provides that if you knowingly
transfer ownership of some item to some other person, knowing (or if
you should have known) that the person intends it to be used illegally
then whatever beef the government has with him later on, if it can
be demonstrated that you knew his intentions then you can be charged
as a co-conspirator. It does not have to be radios. For example, you
go to a store and buy a device to automatically tape record what is
said over the phone. You say to the clerk, "I am buying this so I
can spy on my neighbor's (wife's, whoever) phone calls ..." If the
clerk sells it to you knowing your intended use, he aided and abetted
you in the commission of your crime. Haven't you ever noticed how when
someone famous gets shot or killed, along the way there is always an
attempt to drag the gun dealer who sold the weapon to the deranged
person into the process? Apparently Radio Shack has gotten sued here
and there by the victims of someone spying on them over the radio or
telephone, etc. No one is saying it is against the law to *discuss*
illegal things; merely that you cannot *do* illegal things. Radio
Shack says you won't even *discuss* illegal things if you want to
remain on their payroll. As it was told to me, a few years ago when
FCC agents were raiding the homes/workshops of guys who specialized
in building/selling pirate, out of band CB radios, and guys who were
willfully causing interference on cellular phone frequencies, time
and again they'd find RS equipment being used, and crude typewritten
notes 'published' by RS clerks showing how to do whatever was being
done. The FCC said that could be taken as conspiracy and the Tandy
attornies agreed with the assessment.
How seriously does RS take this? They even send 'shoppers' out from
corporate unknown to local store personnel who go to the local RS
store to check the store out secretly for general purposes. In the
process, they wave a big wad of money around implying they want to buy every
peice of radio equipment in the store's inventory, cash of course, 'but I
would rather not give my name for your computer, and I will need some
advice on how to fix these units to work the way I want them to ...'
In other words, they egg the hungry, paid by commission clerk on, trying
to get him to spill his guts right there in the store. They'll ask
the same questions over and over, a half-dozen different ways, and
let the clerk keep politely dodging the issue. It makes no difference
what magazines publish articles on these things any more than it
matters that 'true detective' magazines publish articles on bank
robberies and how they were done. It's just that you cannot drive the
getaway car for the bank robber any more than you can be the person
who actually robbed the bank. PAT]
Bennett Z. Kobb's profile photo
Bennett Z. Kobb
Jan 9, 1995, 1:23:35 PM
to
The amendment to include cordless came in with the Digital Telephony
Bill, I believe. EFF did not object to the amendment but questioned
its propriety without public dialogue on the subject.
It may not be settled that random scanning, even of cellular spectrum,
violates the ECPA due to the high standard of culpability placed in
the law in the late stages. An excellent reference and opinion paper
on this is "Don't Touch That Dial: Radio Listening Under the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986," by Fred Jay Meyer, in
the New York University Law Review, V63 N2, May 1988.
I'm reminded of Rep. Carlos Moorhead's assurances that "ECPA is not
intended to penalize someone who just happens upon the frequency."
Bennett Kobb bk...@newsignals.com
Editor and publisher Spectrum Guide
Christopher Zguris's profile photo
Christopher Zguris
Jan 10, 1995, 12:35:00 AM
to
g...@gwssun.cb.att.com (Gary Sanders) writes:
You have been listening to to many cell phone sales guys. First, many
scanners don't need to be modified (although new ones may) to listen to
cell phones. They come out of the box with cellular. As for snippets I
would beg to differ, I know some one who is an active cell listner
(-:)) and depending on your local cell configuration you will hear
most of all phone calls that are placed. "my friend" listened to
someone trying to explain how secure a cell phone is becuase its
allways changing freq. Was interesting considering the entire call
was 15 minutes long and never changed cells/freq.
What recent scanners come with cellular enabled? _Recent_ equipment,
that is. Regarding snippets, I'm sure it _does_ depend on the layout
of the cells, but it _also_ depends on how fast the cellular phone is
moving. If it is moving fast -- as opposed to stationary -- it will
break up and move on to another cell/freq. If "your friend" is located
in a major suburban area, he probably won't pick up many complete
calls that last more than a minute or two. You've brought up _one_
instance of hearing an entire cell phone call. If that 15 minute call
is the best "your friend" has heard -- especially when you consider
some people talk on the phone for 30 or more minutes (hours on a
"regular" phone) -- I'd say that kinda proves my point!
Christopher Zguris czg...@mcimail.com
(just another happy MCI customer)
John Higdon's profile photo
John Higdon
Jan 10, 1995, 2:47:02 AM
to
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are wrong on a couple things, however
that is because of confusion over contradictory laws. Aside from what
the Electronic Commuications Privacy Act says, the Federal Communications
Commission addresses the question of radios which have been modified.
Illegal modification (i.e. modification by an unlicensed person) voids
your FCC authority to operate the radio. Furthermore, no *licensed*
person is going to make illegal modifications to a radio and risk having
such handiwork be traced back to his bench, at the possible risk of his
loss of his license.
But this only applies to radios manufactured and offered for sale to
the public and does NOT cover modifications made by an individual for
his own use, or use by another. In fact, there is no prohibition of
any kind with regard to the construction of a radio from scratch by an
individual. Patrick, I know you are old enough to have possibly built
the radios described in the various scouting handbooks. There was no
requirement that one build the radio exactly as described, nor was
there any requirement to have the completed device "certified" in any
way. There has been no change in the basic rules in this regard since
then that I am aware of.
Transmitters are another story. FCC rules require that all transmitters
be maintained and adjusted by a properly licensed technician. As the
holder of such licenses since the 1960's, I am completely unaware of
any grades of license requirement to service any receive-only equipment.
Furthermore, I am unaware of any "FCC authority" required to operate
any receive-only equipment. As scanners are incapable of transmission
(the local oscillator incidental radiation notwithstanding), their
possession, modification, or use are of absolutely no concern to the
FCC.
Using radio receivers in the commission of crimes is, of course, another
matter. But after consulting the volumes of rules that I have handy, I can
find no provision, nor specification of license grade, involved with
maintenance, repair, modification, or adjustment of a radio receiver.
What the Feds tell Radio Shack that it may or may not do is Radio
Shack's problem and does not extend to you and me. I have probably a
half-dozen scanners and service radios capable of receiving the
cellular band. Two of them have that capability because I gave it to
them. I don't think my FCC license is in any jeapardy. If I wanted to
buy another, I would go to Japan and pick one up, or have a friend
simply bring one with him on his return. Customs does not seize them --
they only want to know what they cost!
Note that I am NOT claiming that I listen to cellular transmissions
(that would be illegal). My only claim is that I legally possess
radios capable of such activity and will probably continue to do so in
perpetuity.
John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX:
jo...@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
Tony Pelliccio's profile photo
Tony Pelliccio
Jan 10, 1995, 3:49:50 AM
to
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know where you shop, but all the
Radio Shack units make a point of cutting out the cellular frequencies.
So do quite a few others, and they have for a few years now. PAT]
Actually the AOR-2500 comes through with the cell band intact. Or at
least it did until the FCC attempted to clamp down on it. The nice
thing is the AOR-2500 is considered a communications receiver and not
a scanner and last I heard the whole thing was still tied up in
hearings.
Of course if you really want to follow a cell call just get a DDI and
hook it up to your PC. The interesting thing is that the company that
sells the DDI will only release software with ESN capability to law
enforcement people. Makes you wonder doesn't it?
Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR, VE ARRL/W5YI Tel. (401) 863-1880
Box 1908, Providence, RI 02912 Fax. (401) 863-2269
PB Emerton's profile photo
PB Emerton
Jan 11, 1995, 12:55:43 PM
to
Tony Pelliccio (Tony_Pe...@brown.edu) wrote:
Actually the AOR-2500 comes through with the cell band intact. Or at
least it did until the FCC attempted to clamp down on it. The nice
thing is the AOR-2500 is considered a communications receiver and not
a scanner and last I heard the whole thing was still tied up in
hearings.
Of course if you really want to follow a cell call just get a DDI and
hook it up to your PC. The interesting thing is that the company that
sells the DDI will only release software with ESN capability to law
enforcement people. Makes you wonder doesn't it?
What company is it?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please see the referenced remarks of Tony
Pelliccio above: 'FCC tried to clamp down ... still tied up in court'.
A word to the wise: you don't want to mess with those people *too much*.
A little maybe, but not too much.
Like some people here who have disagreed with me over the past couple
days on this, I seriously doubt the FCC is going to stage any massive
actions to get cellular phone equipped scanners out of circulation, etc.
But what I can tell you is they can be a nasty bunch of buggers when
they want to be. In the past they have gone into pirate radio stations
and started pulling wires and fuses out of the control board while the
station was on the air ... kicked the door down and walked in. They
have spent hours driving around in a van through some neighborhood to
triangulate or get a fix on some signal when they wanted the guy. Like
all government agencies, they have loads of money and an infinite amount
of time and resources to spend when they decide they will get their way. As
Tony points out, they are still fighting in court over the AOR-2500.
When the FCC gets a vendetta of some kind started, for whatever reason,
they will do a number on all concerned. Bureaucrats will be bureaucrats,
and there is nothing worse than a bureaucrat scorned. :)
Selective enforcement of their own code (the Communications Act) at times?
Sure ... all government agencies selectively enforce the law ... so sue
them. But if a time comes for whatever reason that you are a big target
the FCC would like to get under control and instead of just raiding your
premises with a United States Marshall in tow costing you all kinds of
grief and money -- the way another government agency did to Steve Jackson;
remember him? -- if instead they contact your attorney and tell him to get
you on the straight and narrow 'so we do not have to take this further' then
you know what you do? First you Praise Jesus ... then you think over very
carefully how far you want to push it. PAT]
Bob Keller's profile photo
Bob Keller
Jan 11, 1995, 5:50:46 PM
to
Hi Pat,
Most readers have been following this thread in the Digest in recent
days. Bill Sohl has written a final response on the topic, in which
he summarizes FCC regulations and responds to comments made by myself
in recent issues.
I have _not_ been following the thread closely due to press of other
business, but I could not resist agreeing with you and disagreeing
with Mr. Sohl on one point ...
You (PAT) said:
> Aside from what the Electronic Communications Privacy Act says, the
> Federal Communications Commission addresses the question of radios
> which have been modified. Illegal modification (i.e. modification
> by an unlicensed person) voids your FCC authority to operate the
> radio.
Sorry, that is absolutely false. The FCC part 15 rules are the
specifc requirements for which RF devices must be tested against by
the FCC to CERTIFY them for initial sale to the public. That is all
that the rules govern ... initial certification. The rules do not grant
any "authority to operate" the device, nor do the forbid operation of
any certified device that has been modified after the initial sale nor
do they forbid operation of any uncertified device that may have been
built from scratch. Bottom line...Part 15 rules impose absolutely NO
duty on the consumer.
I don't agree. Rule 15.1(b) provides:
"The operation of an intentional or unintentional radiator
that is not in accordance with the regulations in this part
must be licensed pursuant to the provisions of Section 301
of the Communications Act, as amended, unless otherwise
exempted from the licensing requirements elsewhere in this
chapter."
Note that this rule addresses _operation_ of the device. In most, if
not all, radio services, the modified device would not be properly
type accepted in the applicable service which would, in turn, preclude
licensing of its use pursuant to Section 301 except in special cases
(e.g., an experimental or developmental authorization, or possibly
certain amateur radio uses within ham bands and subject to ham rules).
Anyone can buy any commercial receiver (or scanner, or TV, or
computer, etc.) and modify it in any way they want and not be in
violation (as you claim) of any law. Additionally, hobbyists have
been building their own receivers and/or modifying commercial (as well
as military surplus) receivers for years. Doing so is not a crime,
nor does it render the use of any such home built or modified RECEIVER
illegal. Furthermore, there is NO license required to build, modify,
repair or otherwise tinker with any radio receiving equipment used by
the general population.
I am not sure that this statement can be squared with Section 15.21 of
the FCC Rules which provides:
"The users manual or instruction manual for an intentional
or unintentional radiator shall caution the user that
changes or modifications not expressly approved by the
party responsible for compliance could void the user's
authority to operate the equipment."
While I would not necessarily go so far as to label scanner and other
receiver adjustments and/or modifications as necessarily or even
likely "criminal," it is nonetheless important to keep in mind two
important factors:
(1) A device or a circuit within a device that is
"receive-only" may still be (and in the case of
radio receivers usually is) either an intentional
or unintentional radiator within the meaning of
Part 15 of the Rules; and
(2) Without even getting into the debate over the special
statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to
cellular-capable scanners, there is a _big_
difference between opening up a device to repair, allign,
or adjust it and modifying the manufacturer's design
features of the device.
Bob Keller (KY3R) Robert J. Keller, P.C. Tel: 301.229.5208
r...@telcomlaw.com Telecommunications Law Fax: 301.229.6875
<ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/rjk/> <finger r...@telcomlaw.com>
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you, Bob. Section 15.21 is all
I was trying to get across to readers here. No, one does not have to
have a 'license', ie. written document or whatever to operate a
receiving only radio; authority is automatically given when you buy
it from a licensed source. But as soon as you tamper with the innards
and make changes in how or what the radio receives, and how it processes
what it receives *and you are an unlicensed person* -- that is, you lack a
tech ticket -- then according the FCC and 15.21 you lose your authority
(albiet granted originally by default) to 'operate' the radio, which may
amount to nothing more than twisting the off/on switch and the tuning dial.
May I suggest to readers the next time you decide to purchase some sort of
radio, or television perhaps, *look at the user manual*. Let's leave Radio
Shack out of this since some people around here seem to think I am in
cahoots with Tandy or somehow playing tricks using their name. Buy your
radio from whoever. Read the manual. Note the legal verbiage in there
somewhere about *losing your 'authority' to operate the darn thing if you
make unlicensed repairs or modifications*. Why do you think General
Electric, Best Buy, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, etc and oh yeah! Radio Shack put
that admonition in there? The FCC *requires* them to do so.
Radio Shack was putting in the FCC admonition, then their clerks were
making mock of it. In essence, the FCC said, "We'll show who is boss ...'
and they did. PAT]