Federal law prohibits the taping of any conversation without the knowledge of one person in the conversation knowing it. So for me to tape a conversation that I am not involved in, would be illegal. Look on the web for Invasion of Privacy acts, as well as Audio Survellance, not spelled right but you know. The law was not meant for telephone conversations, but invasion of privacy. I think you are getting this mixed up with wire taps, that was out lawed about 10 years ago, and required law officials to request it in the attempt to capture threatning phone calls. There is a great deal of information on this, just type in those key works, you will find it.
Mathew ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Montierth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 2:11 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: FBI Release: Suspect Photos- REQUEST Assistance > > --- Micheal Salem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Joe Montierth wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > What I would like to know is what law or rule is > > being > > > broken by taping conversations heard on > > > "non-telephone" type channels? > > > > > > Anyone have a citation, or is this just urban > > legend? > > > I know it used to be a rule, but that was years > > ago, > > > lots of things have changed. > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > Joe: > > > > Glad to oblige your query. Below I have reproduced > > Title > > 47 United States Code Section 605, the so-called > > "Secrecy Section" of the Communications Act of 1931 > > as > > amended. Interpreting the entire section takes > > quite a bit of time and I won't do that, but there > > are > > a few interesting points to note. > > > > I have broken section (a) down into paragraphs > > instead > > of sentences in the same paragraph. I have put > > numbers > > after each paragraph instead of before because I > > would > > not want you to think that the sentences are > > numbered > > in the original. > > > > Section (a), Sentence 1 is a proscription of > > interception > > and divulgence. > > > > I think this was prohibition against telephone > > company > > employees, for example, who might become acquainted > > with > > the communcations that goes through their system. > > They are > > prohibited from divulging such information and one > > of the > > exception is "demand of lawful authority." This > > could > > mean a warrant and not just a law enforcement > > demand. My > > recollection is that the noted exception in Title 18 > > is a > > part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets > > Act > > which details warrant procedures for interception of > > wire > > and wireless communications. > > > > Also note that it talks about interestate and > > foreign > > communications. I don't think that this section > > applies > > to the kind of communications under discussion. > > Neither > > does Sentence 3. > > > > I think that the operative sentences are 2 and 4. > > They > > contain flat prohibitions of interception and > > divulgence. > > That is, it may not be illegal to intercept, but it > > is illegal to then divulge. > > > > Sentence 5 is the exception for amateurs and > > broadcast. > > To justify this as an on-topic discussion, this > > means that > > Section 605 does not apply to repeaters or persons > > who > > build repeaters (repeater-builders). > > > > I can imagine a procedure under paragraph 2 where > > you > > intercept, then tell the police that you have a tape > > of important significance in the war on terrorism. > > They > > then go get a warrant which allows them to "seize" > > the tape, then you hand it over. > > > > There may also be an FCC Rule under the C.F.R. > > (Code of Federal Regulations) which allows the > > FCC to receive complaints without there being > > violations > > of Section 605, but I have not had time to dig it > > out. > > > > I hope this is helpful. I do think it is > > interesting. > > > > Micheal Salem N5MS > > Norman, Oklahoma > > > > > > > > > > Here is Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605: > > > > > > > > � 605. Unauthorized publication or use of > > communications > > > > > > (a) Practices prohibited > > > > > > Except as authorized by chapter 119, Title 18, no > > person receiving, > > assisting in receiving, > > > If we look at Title 18, chapter 119 we find (among > other stuff): > > (g) > > It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter > 121 of this title for any person - > > (i) > > to intercept or access an electronic communication > made through an electronic communication system that > is configured so that such electronic communication is > readily accessible to the general public; > > (ii) > > to intercept any radio communication which is > transmitted - > > (I) > > by any station for the use of the general public, or > that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons > in distress; > > (II) > > by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, > private land mobile, or public safety communications > system, including police and fire, readily accessible > to the general public; > > (III) > > by a station operating on an authorized frequency > within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens > band, or general mobile radio services; or > > (IV) > > by any marine or aeronautical communications system; > > > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2511.html > > The mere act of "taping" any type of channel mentioned > in this section would not be "divulging" anything. I > think you are correct that "intercepting" and > "divulging" are two separate things. It's perfectly > legal to listen to, or tape the transmissions on any > of the channels included herein. The problem would > only come about if one "divulged" the information, and > since this is a federal law, it could be selectively > enforced. It's really a non-issue. > > Joe > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. > http://messenger.yahoo.com/ > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
