Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ecsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!hes
From: hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer)
Newsgroups: net.dcom,net.ham-radio
Subject: H. R. 3378  on interception of communication
Message-ID: <1184@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Feb-86 21:42:39 EST
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.1184
Posted: Wed Feb 12 21:42:39 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Feb-86 06:42:13 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: NC State Univ.
Lines: 42
Xref: linus net.dcom:1462 net.ham-radio:3230

<>Several people have commented on this bill which is to
ammend title 18, United State Code.  I've read through this
bill (which Geoff@SRI-CSL.ARPA sent me) but have not read
the existing title 18.  A few items particularly caught my
eye.

The types of electronic communication for which interception
*is* allowed are those made "through an electronic communication
system designed so that such electronic communication is readily
accessible to the public."  This seems to be to bias the definition
against the interceptor (who may be as SWL, or a ham or may have
more devious motives) because it doesn't make any difference how
easy it is to "decode" the output from a receiver - the *intent*
of the system designer can determine whether a crime is committed
by the interceptor.

Chapter 119 of title 18 is to be amended by substituting
"electronic" in place of "wire" each place it occurs.  This
appears to put receiving a radio transmission on the same
basis as tapping a wire.  (Remember I haven't looked at the
original bill - but this seems, once again, to be moving the
presumption against the interceptor.)  When tapping a wire,
one usually has to be doing some sort of knowing trespassing,
but tuning a receiver in one's home might not be considered to be
the same sort of knowing trespassing.

A new paragraph (3) to be added at the end of Section 2511
deals with penalties- <=$250,000 or one year in prison, or both
for a first offense (same fine, with 2 years for subsequent
offenses) "if the offense is committed for purposes of
commercial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or
private commercial gain--".  (only $5,000, 6 months in other
cases.)  What is "private commercial gain"?  Does it include
listening to or watching something that somebody else pays
to get to hear/see and so the interceptor has avoided paying?

The implications of this bill might go much further than
intended.  I would appreciate seeing more discussion on this
bill, and finding out if others think that my paranoias are
working overtime.

--henry schaffer