Xref: utzoo rec.radio.shortwave:7604 rec.radio.amateur.policy:451 rec.radio.cb:366 sci.electronics:20716 alt.activism:14549
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!rochester!bbn.com!ulowell!tegra!vail
From: vail@tegra.COM (Johnathan Vail)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.cb,sci.electronics,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Task Force recommends amending ECPA (long)
Message-ID: <2375@atlas.tegra.COM>
Date: 6 Jun 91 14:47:45 GMT
References: <25147@well.sf.ca.us> <2371@atlas.tegra.COM> <1991Jun5.160706.24871@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tegra, Inc., Billerica, MA
Lines: 60
In-reply-to: kaufman@neon.Stanford.EDU's message of 5 Jun 91 16:07:06 GMT


In article <1991Jun5.160706.24871@neon.Stanford.EDU> kaufman@neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) writes:

   vail@tegra.COM (Johnathan Vail (Me!)) writes:
   >antenna@well.sf.ca.us writes:

   -	[text of ECPA ammendments]

   -    rh:  While I disagree with many parts of this report, at least
   -    there is some recognition that receiver owners have rights, too,
   -    and not just those who transmit.

   >I didn't see any of that in the report.  What I saw was what looks
   >like an attempt to protect the privacy of radio by passing more laws
   >saying it is illegal to listen.  Then they go on to say that maybe
   >they should also pass a law to force manufacturers to tell consumers
   >that their equipment isn't private after all.  Then they finish by
   >wishing that they had better technology to fix the problem in the
   >first place.

   Not quite.  What they said was that it is illegal for GOVERNMENT to use
   the results of listening in a prosecution, if the government did not have
   a court authorization.  This makes the conversation "private" in a legal
   sense, if not in practice.  I think the question the amendments are trying
   to address is: should the government have the RIGHT to listen (and use what
   you say against you) just because they have the TECHNOLOGY to do so.
   Remember, the government probably has the technology to listen to you even
   if you encrypt against casual listeners.

hmmm I reread the original post and I see what you are saying but
nowhere did it state specifically that listening is legal.  What they
did  (in my opinion) was to recognize that it is unreasonable to
enforce the law on the average citizen with a scanner.  As I see it
not only would the original ECPA be upheld but cordless phones would
now be "protected" be the amendment.

They use the word 'intentional' a lot implying that that the casual
listener can get away with it somehow.  It does specifically state the
the govt needs a warrant.

If I 'intentionally' tune my R7000 to 49 or 800 MHZ to listen to
whats going on I would be in violation of the law.

That is the way I read the proposed ammendment and I feel that this is
wrong.


jv


.   .  The end of the world doesn't come suddenly and without warning. To
 9 3   imagine it does is to be fooled by popular misconception and thus
  .    fail to recognize the larger picture.  The end of the world is an
       ongoing process.  It starts slowly, imperceptably then blossoms
       unnoticed in our very midst until it has engulfed all that there is
       and none is free from its spell.
 _____
|     | Johnathan Vail | n1dxg@tegra.com
|Tegra| (508) 663-7435 | N1DXG@448.625-(WorldNet)
 -----  jv@n1dxg.ampr.org {...sun!sunne ..uunet}!tegra!vail