And "Big Brother" just keeps marching on! George KE4HJ Donald Chester wrote:
> >From last week's Telecom Digest and DX Listener's Digest (forwarded to me by > e-mail): > > ** U S A. House Radio Bill > http://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks-moderated%40minder.net/msg01671.html > > Dave Emery (N1PRE)'s outstanding review of the radio reception provisions in > the Cyber Electronic Security Act passed by the House on Monday, July 15. > > "In effect this removes a safe harbor created during the negotiations over > the ECPA back in 1985-86 which ensured that first offenses for hobby radio > listening were only treated as minor crimes - after this law is passed > SIMPLY INTENTIONALLY TUNING A COMMON SCANNER to the (non-blocked) cordless > phone frequencies could be prosecuted as a > felony for which one could serve 5 years in jail. ..." > > And there's more, including changed provisions related to the publication of > material heard by radio. > > http://www.newsignals.com http://www.spectrumfinder.net > (Benn Kobb, July 17, DX LISTENING DIGEST) > > ** U S A. [WUN] MAJOR CHANGE TO THE ECPA THAT IMPACTS EVERYONE... > Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:46:01 -0400 > From: Dave Emery [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Something of enormous importance to radio hobbyists has just happened in > Washington, and so far I haven't seen any mention or discussion of it on any > scanner or ham lists I follow. I hope this message will alert others to > what has just happened and get people thinking about the consequences... > > The House just passed the Cyber Security Enhancement Act (HR3482) last night > (7/15/02) by an overwhelming margin of 385-3. Buried in an otherwise > draconian bill that raises penalties for computer hacking that causes death > or serious injury to life in prison and allows government monitoring of > communications and email without warrants in even more circumstances is the > following seeming obscure language: > > : SEC. 108. PROTECTING PRIVACY. > : > : (a) Section 2511- Section 2511(4) of title 18, United > : States Code, is amended-- > : > : (1) by striking paragraph (b); and > : > : (2) by redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (b). > > For those of you who don't realize what this means .... > > USC Section 2511 subsection 4 of title 18 (the ECPA) currently reads as > foilows.... the CSEA will strike part (b) of this language. > > Penalties.. > > : (a) > : > : Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection > : or in subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) > : of this section shall be fined under this title or > : imprisoned not more than five years, or both. > : > : > > [The following section will be eliminated by the new law...] > > : (b) > : > : If the offense is a first offense under paragraph (a) > : of this subsection and is not for a tortious or illegal > : purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial > : advantage or private commercial gain, and the wire or > : electronic communication with respect to which the > : offense under paragraph (a) is a radio communication that > : is not scrambled, encrypted, or transmitted using > : modulation techniques the essential parameters of > : which have been withheld from the public with the > : intention of preserving the privacy of such communication, > : then - > : > : (i) > : > : if the communication is not the radio portion of a > : cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone > : communication that is transmitted between the cordless > : telephone handset and the base unit, a public land > : mobile radio service communication or a paging service > : communication, and the conduct is not that described > : in subsection (5), the offender shall be fined under > : this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or > : both; and > : > : (ii) > : > : if the communication is the radio portion of a > : cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone > : communication that is transmitted between the cordless > : telephone handset and the base unit, a public land > : mobile radio service communication or a paging service > : communication, the offender shall be fined under this > : title. > > What this does is change the penalty for the first offense of intercepting > an unscrambled and unencrypted radio communication that is not supposed to > be listened to (e.g. AMPS cellular calls, commercial pagers, cordless > phones, common carrier communications) for hobby purposes (eg not a tortuous > or illegal purpose or for direct or indirect commercial advantage or private > commercial gain) from a > misdemeanour (one year or less prison time) to a federal FELONY (5 years > prison time). > > And further this changes the status of the specific offense of listening to > a cell call, cordless call, a pager, or a public land mobile radio service > communication (eg a telephone interconnect) from a minor offense for which > one can be fined a maximum of $500 to a federal FELONY for which one can be > imprisoned for up to 5 years. > In effect this removes a safe harbor created during the negotiations over > the ECPA back in 1985-86 which ensured that first offenses for hobby radio > listening were only treated as minor crimes - after this law is passed > simply intentionally tuning a common scanner to the (non-blocked) cordless > phone frequencies could be prosecuted as a felony for which one could serve > 5 years in jail. > > And in case any of my readers have forgotten, a federal felony conviction > (even without any jail time) deprives one of the right to vote, to own > firearms, to be employed in a number of high level jobs and professions, to > hold certain professional licenses and permits, and important for certain > readers of these lists absolutely eliminates for life the possibility of > holding any kind of security clearance > whatever (a recent change in the rules) - something required for many if not > most interesting government and government related jobs. > > So merely being stopped by a cop with the cordless phone frequencies in your > scanner could conceivably result in life long loss of important rights and > privileges. > > For some of you out there this may seem small potatoes and irrelevant since > it merely changes the penalties for an already illegal act (which you are > not supposed to be engaged in) and doesn't make anything new illegal. But > this is a rather naïve view. > > The federal government was certainly not going to prosecute a hobbyist for > radio communications interception under the old version of the ECPA if the > worst penalty that could be levied was a $500 fine - there simply is not the > budget or the staff to prosecute people for what would be a very minor > offense (equivalent of a speeding ticket). And even prosecuting hobbyists > for more serious interception (eg not > cellular, cordless or pagers) was still a misdemeanor offense prosecution > with jail time unlikely. > > So in practice the only prosecutions were of people who clearly had a > commercial or political purpose or otherwise engaged in egregious and public > (e.g. the Newt Gingrich call) conduct - no hobbyist ever got prosecuted. And > this was doubtless the intent of Congress back in 1985-86 - it would be > illegal to monitor certain radio traffic but only a minor offense if you did > so for hobby type personal curiosity or just to hack with the equipment or > technology - and a serious felony if one engaged in such conduct for the > purpose of committing a crime or gaining financial or commercial advantage > (e.g. true spying or electronic eavesdropping). But after this bill is > signed into law (and clearly it will be), it will be quite possible for a > federal prosecution of a hobbyist for illegal radio listening to be > justified as a serious felony offense worth the time and effort and money to > try and put the guy in jail even if the offense is not for a commercial > purpose or part of an illegal scheme. Thus "radio hacker" prosecutions have > now become possible, and even perhaps probable. > > And federal prosecutors and law enforcement agents get career advancement > and attention from senior management in their agencies in direct proportion > to the seriousness of the offense they are investigating and prosecuting - > nobody ever advances to senior agent for going after jaywalkers, thus by > raising the level of less than legal hobby radio monitoring offenses from a > jaywalking class offense to a serious felony for which there can be real > jail time it becomes much more interesting from a career perspective to > prosecute radio listeners. > > And needless to say, such prosecutions would be shooting fish in a barrel > type things given that many individuals are quite open on Internet > newsgroups and mailing lists about their activities. > > And of course this MAJOR change in the ECPA also has the effect of making > the rather ambiguous and unclear meaning of "readily accessible to the > general public" in 18 USC 2510 and 2511 much more significant, since > intercepting something that isn't readily accessible to the general public > is now clearly a serious crime even if done for hobby purposes as a first > offense. Thus one has to be much more careful about making sure that the > signal is a legal one... > > And further than all of this, and perhaps even MUCH more significant to > radio hobbyists on Internet scanner lists .... > > The careful, thoughtful reader will note that section 4 has been revised a > bit lately, and that this new section 4 (see above) now makes it a federal > felony with 5 years in jail penalties to violate section 1 INCLUDING the > following provisions of section 1:18 USC 2511: > > : (1) > : Except as otherwise specifically provided in this > : chapter any person who - > : > : (c) > : > : intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to > : any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or > : electronic communication, knowing or having reason to > : know that the information was obtained through the > : interception of a wire, oral, or electronic > : communication in violation of this subsection; > : > : (d) > : > : intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the > : contents of any wire, oral, or electronic > : communication, knowing or having reason to know that > : the information was obtained through the > : interception of a wire, oral, or electronic > : communication in violation of this subsection; or > : > : shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or > : shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5). > > This seems to have changed the status of revealing as part of a hobby list > any hint of the contents of a radio communications that might or might not > have been legally intercepted from a potentially minor misdemeanor offense > or less to a serious felony. Thus if a court finds that any communication > reported on an Internet list was not legally intercepted, felony penalties > apply for publishing the information even if the interception was for hobby > purposes (which of course most scanner list intercepts are). > > Most significant for many of us, the section 18 USC 2510 exceptions to the > prohibitions on intercepting radio communications in 18 USC 2511 are pretty > silent about military communications - not prohibited, or specifically > allowed except as "governmental communications". So it is possible that > military comms might be found to be illegal to intercept and thus passing > around information about them a potential felony, even though of course the > military has complete access to the world's best COMSEC technology and uses > for anything sensitive. But in a paranoid age (post 9/11) anything goes... > and if the government wants to go after scanner lists (like Milcom) it might > now be able to do so with prosecutions with real teeth and jail time. Thus > the legal climate has fundamentally changed, and one can assume that since > the Bush administration has been pushing for the passage of this bill that > they perhaps intend to start prosecuting at least some category of radio > hobbyists under the new provisions - no doubt as an example meant to scare > the rest of us into handing our radios in at the nearest police station... > > So yet another blow to the radio hobbies.... and a big one indeed... > > -- Dave Emery N1PRE, [EMAIL PROTECTED] DIE Consulting, Weston, Mass. > > _______________________________________________ > WUN mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/wun == end == > (via Tomas NW7US // AAR0JA Hood, swl via DXLD) > > This bill is not limited to just cell phone communications. But to > ANY communication not intended for general public consumption. So, > that could include listening in to the Coast Guard rescue > communications, local police and fire, and so on. > > I know that listening to any Shortwave Frequency that some > governmental agency decides is not for general public use would be > covered by this bill. Making even scanning through those frequencies a > federal crime. Cell phones are a very limited part of what this bill > impacts. 73 de (Tomas, NW7US // AAR0JA, ibid.) > > Next step, you'll have to register your radio down at the local Police > department obtaining a permit. And then later you'll only be able to > buy radios that cover the FM and Mediumwave broadcast bands, and > 'maybe' if you're lucky the International Broadcast bands. Anyone > owning a vintage general coverage receiver such as a Hallicrafters, > Hammarlund, Icom etc will be "suspect" and possibly open to criminal > charges. And, God forbid that you should even think of owning a ``DC > to Daylight`` receiver. Of course, criminals will always be able to > "buy them on the street", for the right price. Does that sound like > any other kind of government control we know of? > (Phil, KO6BB Atchley, ibid.) > > Many other countries do limit what radios their citizens can own and > operate. With only a handful of amateurs, most non-democratic > countries do keep their licensed amateurs under some scrutiny. In > China, unless you are a loyal and ranked 'party member, having even a > legal amateur station subjects you to frequent inspections and > monitoring. I've been there and seen it... Many of our in-country > employees who were amateurs, would come to work to use our own company > stations for conversations with their friends in other countries - > afraid of being called on the carpet to (McCarthy era like) to explain > their actions. > > Could the US force you to 'register' your radio and limit ownership to > only standard broadcast band receivers? Sure. Probably not in the next > generation or so, but in the 'brave new world' of the mid 21st > century, who knows... 73 (Frank ----, swl) > > _________________________________________________________________ > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > > _______________________________________________ > AMRadio mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio -- "If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough." Mario Andretti Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional. THE REPUBLIC OF HOOTERVILLE DICTATOR AND CHIEF OF POLICE GEORGE TAYLOR (the grey fox) 2OLD RACING AMA#42,CCS#93,AHRMA#637 TA125/TD3/TR3/'90TZ250
