Xref: utzoo rec.ham-radio:3597 sci.electronics:1846 misc.legal:3217
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!ima!necntc!frog!die
From: die@frog.UUCP (Dave Emery)
Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio,sci.electronics,misc.legal
Subject: Does the ECPA have teeth yet ?
Keywords: ECPA jail sentence felony ham swl
	
	It has now been one year since it became illegal (a felony in many
Message-ID: <1999@frog.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jan 88 02:08:00 GMT
Organization: Superfrog Heaven [ CRDS, Framingham MA ]
Lines: 45

cases) under the provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of
1986 to listen to (intercept) certain radio communications.   Does anyone
out there know if there have been any actual criminal investigations, arrests,
prosecutions, convictions, fines or jail sentences, or administrative actions 
such as FCC license revocations for violations of the radio privacy provisions
of this new law ?  In particular have there been any actual court 
interpretations of the its confusing and peculiar distinctions between
different types of radio signals  (and different penalties for intercepting
them) ?

	It was widely reported at the time the law was passed that the
justice department did not intend to prosecute anyone for violations of
the law unless they were doing so for a clearly criminal purpose (EG such
obviously criminal activities as intercepting microwave telephone calls from
stores to credit authorization centers to steal credit card numbers would
be prosecuted, but merely tuning around that spectrum to see what was there
would not be).  Has this policy changed or is it likely to change
with a new administration in Washington ?

	If there have been any prosecutions at all, have any of them been
of private individuals (hams/swls/rf hackers) for listening to radio or
satellite communications in the privacy of their homes motivated entirely
by curiosity about what is out there and/or by the technical challenge of
receiving and demodulating the signal and without any criminal purpose
whatsoever ?  I suspect that a reasonable large percentage of readers of 
rec.ham-radio have technically violated the law in this spirit (as the
widespread interest in cutting D513 to enable cellular coverage in the 
PRO-2004 indicates); even though hams are notoriously law abiding I suspect
many feel the law is unenforcable or are simply ignorant of its fierce
provisions since it has been so very little publicized.

	If anybody out there knows of specific court cases it would very
valuable if they could post that information to the net - as many questions
remain about what this seemingly unenforcable law actually means in a
practical sense to those of us who peer at the rf spectrum as a part of
our hobby.  
	
--
----
David I. Emery
Charles River Data Systems
983 Concord St.
Framingham, MA 01701
Tel: (617) 626-1102
uucp: ...!decvax!frog!die