Ham Radio/Ham Radio CD-ROM (Emerald Software) (1995).ISO/news/inham07/943

Text File | 1980-01-01 | 8.9 KB | 197 lines

Subject: INFO-HAMS Digest V89 #943
To: [e-mail]

INFO-HAMS Digest            Tue, 28 Nov 89       Volume 89 : Issue 943

Today's Topics:
                       Instructions for MININEC
                        Protecting Mobile Rigs
                   The "Right to Receive" (3 msgs)
                         Wireless (RF) Modems
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 89 14:39:53 EST
From: Robert Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Instructions for MININEC

Having down loaded MININEC3 from SIMTEL20, I now need instructions on its
use.  At very least the input data format would be helpful. Reading the
hardly-commented Basic source is certainly the hard way of finguring it out.

Any suggestions?

73, Bob W3OTC   [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 89 15:38:16 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Protecting Mobile Rigs

There are two dangers- overcurrent, best protected by the rig itself, and
overvoltage- which most rigs are designed to handle. Sort of.

Most commercial specs call for protection against a certain amount of
alternator dumping, but are not prpared for the worst case. This can
happen when you've got a low battery, high charging rate and the regulator
opens, for one reason or another. According to a friend in the business
of supplying electronics for military vehicles, the voltage can rise
to many times the regulated voltage.

So what should the careful ham do? First, put in your own voltage
regulator or crowbar to protect against dumping, and perhaps a current
limiting system as well. Both of these can be accomplished very simply
with a fuse or circuit breaker and a stout zener. If either overvoltage
or excessive current occurs, the fuse/breaker pops.

       --ke8yy

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 89 19:15:11 GMT
From: tank!eecae!cps3xx![e-mail]  (Usenet file owner)
Subject: The "right to receive"

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Neal,
>      phonetapping is not a crime because it requires trespassing on phone
>company property. Even if the police had phone company permission to acess
>their property , phonetapping is still illegal without a court order. Could
>the phone company transcribe all your phone calls and publish them? Its their
>property so can they do what they want? The "crime" is invasion of privacy.

So far so good, but your analogy will break down soon.  The phone
company does not route all their lines through my basement.  I don't own
those lines.  However, the phone company does route the cellular phone
discussions right through my house, my body, etc.  There are even
questions as to whether this RF will affect my health!

>If I use a telescope to peek into my neighbours bedroom and videotape all I
>see, is that OK as long as I don't sell the tape? To be a "victim" does not
>require property loss or damage.

Yes, this is just fine.  If your neighbours don't want you to see
anything, they should pull their curtains closed.  That is their right.
If you trespass on their property to circumvent this action, then you
have committed another crime.

>     Let me say that I am all for freedom of speech and action, where it does
>not interfere with my right to privacy. You can say whatever you want to - I
>don't have to listen. But when you listen in to my phone calls, where is my
>right to privacy? Could you, or "the authorities" listen in to my cellular
>phone calls and use whatever was heard as evidence in court, without prior
>court permission? Now where is the "police state".

I don't see any problem with this.  If you weren't doing anything
illegal, the police wouldn't have anything to prosecute you over.  If
you don't want them to hear your conversations, don't use a public media
(RF)!  It's just like saying if you don't want people to know something,
you shouldn't shout it out loud in a crowded subway!

>   Isn't the right to privacy often cited as a constituational right? Do I
>have to scramle all my phone calls to achieve this, or should interception of
>conversations intended to be private, be a violation of the law?

You shouldn't have to scramble any phone conversations which only take
place on wires.  If they go by radio, then they are public!  Your right
to privacy ends when you stop being a private person.  You don't have to
"right" to travel through a city without anybody knowing where you are.
People don't have to close their eyes because they might see somebody on
the road!  Your right to privacy is intimately tied with the trespassing
laws.  People cannot trespass to find out things about you, but they
also aren't required to ignore you when you are in public!  Imagine
taking ECPA to extremes: Everybody must wear earplugs, blindfolds,
noseclamps, etc. at all times, in order to "avoid violating somebodies
constitutional right to privacy".  Kind of silly, isn't it?

>(By the way, whatever happened to amateur radio on this newsgroup??)
>                                                Bob Atkins,  KA1GT

In the rare case that original ideas   Kenneth J. Hendrickson    N8DGN
are found here, I am responsible.      Owen W328, E. Lansing, MI 48825
Internet: [e-mail]           UUCP: ...!uunet!pollux!kjh

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 89 18:21:03 GMT
From: att!cbnewsm!mhgki![e-mail]  (atkins, robert m)
Subject: The "Right to Receive"

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>
.....lots left out to conserve net bandwidth....

> I broke out the Bill of Rights and read through it, I can't find any
> "Right to Privacy".
>
> I haven't read all the way through the "Constituation" in awhile but I don't
> remember anything like this.  Robert could you please tell me about the
> "Right to Privacy"? I'd like to keep abreast of my rights and I don't
> remember ever having heard about this one.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
> [e-mail]

As a poor ex-patriot englishman, trying to make sense of a foreign culture,
please excuse my lack of detailed knowledge. I hear "the right to privacy"
cited as a "right to chose (abortion)" arguement. I believe it is derived
from the protection against unlawful search and seizure but I'm not sure
exactly how. By the way, this discussion is getting too far away from ham
radio to be in this news group. Please address replies via e-mail to me at
att!mhgki!rma, or whatever header appears on this posting.
                                     Bob Atkins KA1GT

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 89 18:32:10 GMT
From: att!cbnewsm!mhgki![e-mail]  (atkins, robert m)
Subject: The "right to receive"

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Myron A. Calhoun) writes:
>
...stuff deleted to save space.... claims of a right to privacy

> The simplest answer is that there cannot BE a "right to privacy"!
>
> If there were such a "right", then I would undoubtedly have the "right"
> to listen to your phone calls, peer into your bedroom with my telescope,
> (assuming you lived closed enough!-), etc., from the privacy of my own
> house, but if there were such a right you could claim that your "right"
> to privacy was being invaded when I used my "right" to privacy.
>
> Ergo sum!  There cannot BE any such "right to privacy"!
> --Myron.
> Disclaimers:  I'm NOT a lawyer.  I don't have a cordless phone or baby monitor

Note: we are way off ham-radio here. Please follow up by email...
Come on myron, think about this. Does my right not to be shot (or don't I
have that one either) confilict with your right to shoot me?(extreme example
I know, but you get the point). Are you seriously saying I have no right to
privacy at all? I believe it is illegal to be a "peeping tom" isn't it?
Perhaps a real lawyer could comment.

     Again, please route any follow up comments by e-mail to att!mhgki!rma

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 89 18:44:26 GMT
From: att!cbnewsm!mhgki![e-mail]  (atkins, robert m)
Subject: Wireless (RF) Modems

Has anyone else come across the MEGADATA wireless (RF) modem ads. I have
a glossy flyer from them describing their rf modem which operates in the
frequency band "406-470MHz". This is marked with a footnote "use of radio
frequencies MAY (my capitals) require prior authorization; consult your
local FCC office for policy and regulations". No mention of ham-radio at
all. In a seperate publication the region 420-450 MHz is credited as
being an amateur radio band. The unit is priced at $2400, so I doubt it
will get much ham use. Worth keeping an eye on?

                               Bob Atkins, KA1GT

------------------------------

End of INFO-HAMS Digest V89 Issue #943
**************************************