Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: russ@alliant.com (Russell McFatter)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping
Message-ID: <1887@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 4 Dec 89 21:18:11 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Russell McFatter <russ@alliant.alliant.com>
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA
Lines: 52
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 556, message 1 of 7


The Communications Act of 1934 actually goes a bit further: it
basically states (as a result of international accord) that the
airwaves belong to the PUBLIC, not the government.  The concept here
is that any signal which is beamed into YOUR airspace belongs to you,
and you can do with it as you please subject to certain restrictions
for reasons of national security.

The concept here is "personal use" of material which is intentionally
or unintentionally sent into your property: Just as with broadcast TV,
you can (watch / videotape) to your heart's content, as long as the
material is for your own personal use.  You cannot sell, or in many
cases give away, such information if it is "obviously" of a restricted
/ copyrighted nature.  Under the Act, if you are to receive a
transmission of a "secret" nature, you are obliged not to divulge the
information to anyone (even for free), but may listen to it yourself.

There are three recent examples of subsequent laws which appear to
violate the Act: (1) States which ban radar detectors, which are
effectively radio receivers.  The Communications Act of 1934 is
frequently used in defense of radar detectors (although your rights
for receiving signals while MOBILE, on public property, are not
clear).  (2) Descrambling satellite transmissionswas made illegal not
too long ago.  This is another case of a (presumably contestable)
situation where you are prohibited from using, even for your own
personal reasons, information beamed into your house without your
consent.  (3) Protection for cellular telephones.

I think that half the reason for the Communications Act of 1934 is one
that we are seeing right here: If, by voluntarily transmitting a
low-power signal on an authorized channel, in such a manner that the
signal invades my neighbor's property, can I now seek to make it
illegal for my neighbor to listen to that frequency ever again?  Is
the liability my NEIGHBOR'S (for listening), or MINE (for beaming the
signal into his house)?  This is what the Act seeks to resolve: that
airwaves are public in nature, and cannot be monopolized by people who
intend to use the resource as their own private communications device.

If I wanted my baby's noises to be secure from prying ears, I could
have easily trotted down to Radio Shack and purchased a wired(!)
intercom that doesn't pollute the airwaves, or (what a concept!) put
the baby where I can hear it without electronic assistance.  (A bit
more reliable, don't you think?)  If I'm really bent on wireless
intercoms inside my home, I should either accept the fact that I am
voluntarily BROADCASTING, or at least take measures on my own to see
that the transmissions do not leave my house.  Most manufacturers of
cordless phones (even some cellular phones), baby monitors, and other
"Part 49" gizmos DO alert you to the fact that wireless communications
defy privacy.  This is not merely our law, but a law of nature as
well; to legislate otherwise will bring us nothing but headaches.

   Russ McFatter     russ@alliant.Alliant.COM