Monster Media 1993 #2/Image.iso/text/crimftr1.zip/CRIMEFTR.018

Text File | 1993-07-06 | 33KB | 610 lines

                  Wiretap Laws and Surveillance Equipment

Wiretap and covert surveillance equipment is legally advertised and sold
"for educational purposes only."  That disclaimer protects the seller by
doesn't mean it's permissible to use them in illegal applications.

Wiretap equipment ("interception devices") and burglar tools are often
advertised in survival magazines. If you buy such equipment be careful not
to get caught with it. In most states, mere possession of these items is a
felony. In Arizona, both are class 6 felonies.

My recommendation is, don't buy anything, use it, or carry it if it can get
you in trouble. If you have it, you'll be tempted to use it -- probably
without legal sanction. Eventually you'll be caught red-handed.  Never use
such items unless you use them under police supervision.

When you have a strong lead on an illegal activity, report it to the FBI as
a partial disclosure and negotiate for rewards. At that time, if they feel
that wiretaps or lock picks are needed, they may provide such equipment.
They will also obtain needed warrants and operate the devices.

A pocketbook called "Prince of the City" contains a lot of information on
wiretapping, and how New York cops used it illegally, took bribes,
concealed evidence, and were caught. It's a good example of wiretap abuse
and the consequences of being caught. Another good pocketbook, "Cop
Hunter," by Vincent Murano, a retired NYPD detective,is a sequel to
"Serpico" and "Prince of the City."  It's mainly about NYPD's Internal
Affairs Division (IAD) who ferret out corrupt cops, how undercover cops
work, and the dangers encountered. The author, Murano, complains frequently
about the ineffective electronic equipment they use and that undercover
agents risk their lives with it. With that comment in mind, perhaps Crime-
Fighters should purchase their own equipment, use it at home, and to become
familiar with and depend upon. But be sure to obtain legal authorization
before using use it on a case. If you are found using it illegally (without
a warrant when a warrant is required) you could be charged with a felony.

                            Cordless Telephones

Newspaper article by John Waggoner, in USA Today, July 30, 1990:
"IRS cups its ear to cordless phones.

If you're thinking about declaring a few imaginary dependents this year,
don't mention it on your cordless phone. The Internal Revenue Service may
be listening.  Under new guidelines for its criminal investigators, the IRS
can use radio scanners to eavesdrop on suspected tax dodgers while they
chat on their cordless phones. No warrant is necessary.  The IRS policy,
issued as an update to a handbook for investigators, comes in the wake of a
recent Supreme Court action.

The high court declined in January (1990) to review a federal appeals court
ruling that conversations on cordless phones are not subject to federal
privacy laws.

The IRS thinks that since there are no legal or constitutional protection
against listening in to cordless phones, its agents aren't bound by any
higher principles," says Janlori Goldman of the American Civil Liberties
Union's Privacy Project.

The ACLU has asked Congress to overhaul the 1986 Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, which extended federal privacy protection to such areas as
cellular telephones and electronic computer mail -- but specifically
omitted the emerging technology of cordless phones.

The current law makes no sense," says Goldman. "If your telephone happens
to have a cord, your privacy is protected by federal law. If not, you have
none."  Unquote.

Radio Shack and other companies now have cordless phone Scramblers to solve
the privacy problem. The hand-held phone has a built-in scrambler that
transmits garbled info to the base set, which unscrambles it and transmits
normal conversations over the regular phone line. That eliminates air-waves
eavesdropping. But, not everyone has them or are aware they're available.

                              Cellular Phones

Cellular phones are the latest target of eavesdroppers. Scanners are
available on the market, similar to a CB or radio scanner, which seek out
signals (broadcasts). The scanners automatically tune in and you can listen
to other people's conversations -- like radio scanners.

A newspaper article in USA Today (April 20, l990), featured an expose on
this illegal practice. The article mentioned how David Murphy, of Boston,
eavesdrops on cellular phone conversations taking place in the cars around
him -- ably demonstrating an illegal but increasingly popular hobby. His
headset looks like a Walkman radio so no one suspects his illegal but
amusing high-tech hobby -- voyeurism by telephone.

David says he hears all kinds of confidential matters discussed, such as
credit card numbers and expiration dates when someone is making a purchase,
plus intimate details between married people who live with other spouses.
It would seem, according to David's accomplishments, the use of a cellular
phone may be hazardous to your wealth or marriage --if cellular phone users
aren't more careful.

Normally, trying to eavesdrop on cellular phones is difficult, especially
when travelling in a vehicle because "handoffs" from one cell to another
often change the frequency. In crowded areas, where a lot of calls are on
the air at the same time it's more difficult to "find" the conversation
during handoffs. But it can be done.

Cellular phone frequencies are between 800 to 900 megahertz. Hackers are
adept at tracking the handoffs, and can fine-tune the reception to hear
just as well as the two people on their respective phones who are unaware
their security has been breached. There are no tell-tale clicks or
background noise of the eavesdropper on a cellular phone because it's a
short-wave radio broadcast.

A hacker who finds an interesting conversation can also note the frequency
being used, which is similar to a telephone number temporarily used for
that particular transmission. In a stationary location, where no handoffs
are needed, it's relatively simple to lock on to a frequency --identical to
planting a wire tap but without any telltale evidence.

When police want to, they can obtain wiretap authorization to tap cellular
phones from switching stations. They don't have to use a scanner.

This new hobby of eavesdropping is gaining popularity, and the costs are
coming down to an affordable level. That's bad, not good. It's just a
matter of time before enterprising crooks will be using them to "fish" for
juicy gossip for blackmail purposes or credit card fraud.

Why am I telling you all about an illegal activity? First, so you don't
think it's legal (with the possible exception of cordless phones, it
isn't). Second, because it's illegal, you should know the use of scanners
and eavesdropping on cellular phones whether for "fun" or other purposes
violates the laws mentioned in this chapter. However, it can be authorized
like an ordinary wiretap, and therefore may be something you should know
about. Last but not least, the bad guys, whose gang you may be trying to
infiltrate, might know about it too. They might tap your cordless or
cellular phone. Be careful of that, too!

The only remedy for absolute confidentiality is to use a telephone
scrambler, available for about $299 a pair. They're small units that slip
over the telephone handset. You speak through them to the phone mouthpiece.
The conversation is scrambled at the transmitting end and unscrambled by a
similar device at the receiving end. They use a 9V battery so they're also
portable and can be used with cordless or cellular phones. Both scrambler
units are manually adjusted to use the same codes. There are 52,488
selectable codes so you can change codes at any time, or daily, to
frustrate eavesdropping or bugging. More sophisticated and more expensive
units automatically select random codes for each phone call. They are
virtually impossible to decode -- even with powerful computers.

If David Murphy, or anyone else, were to "accidentally" listen to a
confidential telephone conversation and found a juicy bit of information
that was damaging to one or both of the parties, he might be able to learn
their names and addresses and be tempted to try a bit of blackmail, also
illegal. However, there might be a situation in which you do not perceive
the situation as illegal blackmail.

                         CrimeFighters' Blackmail

Blackmail in its usual form means obtaining or possessing damaging
information about another person or company and threatening to disclose
that information unless payment is made.

Another form of blackmail is more subtle.  Say that you found a company
polluting water and liable for a million dollar fine. Under pollution laws,
you might receive half of the fine when a fine is levied. However, the
company may be expected to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court if
possible to weaken the effect of bad publicity and to obtain extra time to
earn the money to pay the expected fine. That could take many years and,
charges might be reduced considerably because of plea bargaining, deals and
compromises with the prosecution, and politics. The half a million dollar
reward may or may not be paid, and if paid, may take a long time.

You might be tempted to contact the company, advising them of your
knowledge and conclusive proof of violation and suggest settling the matter
out of court (provided the company stops polluting and cleans up the
existing pollution) and you suggest payment of the reasonable sum of
$250,000 instead of an much larger reward if the case were taken to court.

You might reason to yourself that justice has been served, the same as if
it had gone to court. Under normal circumstances you might be paid about
$500,000, but for a quick settlement out of court, you would be happy to be
paid $250,000 right away with no hassles and no waiting.

While justice may seem to be served, it is also justice denied. The purpose
of law enforcement is to take violators to court to punish them via due
process to the appropriate extent of the severity of pollution. The added
burden of legal fees and bad publicity, plus a conviction on the record, is
also part of the punishment -- not to mention the half a million the EPA
would lose by non-payment to the court.

From a law enforcement perspective, the bad publicity serves as a warning
to others that violators will be punished. When anyone interferes with
enforcement of laws, by taking the law into their own hand in this manner
no matter how good the intention, it's illegal!  There is a law to
"discourage" blackmail of any kind.

                      Title 18 Section 873 Blackmail

"Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not
informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands
or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined not more than
$2,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

                                * * * * * *

When a person has knowledge of a violation of any law he is required by law
to report it. When a person makes a "deal" not to report it, he or she can
expect to be charged with blackmail.

(The penalty seems woefully inadequate when the expected "profit" from
blackmail can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's a common
problem with laws which state a specific amount or terms of imprisonment --
they aren't updated often enough to keep up with the times, technology, and
inflation.)
                        The Blackmail Double Cross

In the above scenario, if you weren't aware you were using blackmail, the
company's lawyer would be quick to recognize it. The company might
encourage you to sign an agreement to not disclose the damaging information
in exchange for the $250,000 check being offered. But, as soon as the
agreement was signed, the company could refuse to pay (by putting a stop
payment on the check). They might say "if you report our violation, we'll
report your blackmail attempt."  At that time, they would have evidence of
your blackmail scheme and could use it in court to destroy your credibility
as an "honest" witness. You might be charged and convicted of blackmail!

                     Plea bargaining Isn't Blackmail!

You can make almost the same deal as above, but make it in your legal
capacity as prosecutor under Qui Tam law. For example: (a) Initiate a
personal damage lawsuit for $90,000 plus $10,000 for the cost of
investigation and other costs. (b) Lay charges. Use pending charges of
criminal violations as leverage to settle the civil suit out of court if
possible. (c) If your lawsuit has been settled, you can ask the (criminal)
court for a $300,000 fine to be levied under appropriate pollution laws
where you get half. If the civil suit is not easily settled, let it hang in
abeyance, and ask for the $500,000 fine in the criminal suit. (d) Turn over
the actual prosecution to the appropriate law enforcement agency. If the
defendant loses, and pays the maximum fines you can still get half but may
have to wait for it because of anticipated lengthy appeals.

If plea bargaining is acceptable to both parties, the usual bargain is: in
exchange for a guilty plea, the prosecutor (you) will recommend a smaller
fine and possibly downgrade criminal charges. A guilty or nola contendere
plea provides the evidence of liability in your civil suit, if it's not
already settled, and allows you to ask for summary judgment. The result:
you can offer almost the same deal as above as a prosecutor. The difference
is, plea bargaining isn't blackmail. All prosecutors use plea bargaining to
apply pressure on defendants to reduce their time and court costs. More
details on this subject is in chapter 27 ("Problems with Prosecutors and
Plea Bargaining").

                       Wiretapping or Eavesdropping

It's important CrimeFighters fully understand this law as it's easy to
cross the line from legal to illegal use. As mentioned earlier, many
devices on the market can be used for eavesdropping or bugging. Sometimes
it's legal, but most of the time it's illegal.  It's important you avoid
temptation to indiscriminately use such devices to obtain evidence. And,
look for violations of anyone who might be illegally using such devices.

There is a reward paid for information concerning violations of this law,
section (18 USCS 2510 et seq.).  Here's some background information.

The laws on wiretapping are based on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States.

                   The Constitution of the United States

Fourth Amendment

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."

Comment: The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right against unreasonable
searches, such as random searches or "fishing expeditions."  Unauthorized
wiretapping or bugging "without reasonable cause" and a court order
violates the Fourth Amendment.

Fifth Amendment

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment by a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just
compensation".

Comment: The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be compelled
to be a witness against himself or herself. Our lawmakers probably had in
mind an admission of guilt obtained under coercion or mental duress. Often
the threat of torture or other threats may result in phoney "confessions"
such as those obtained in dictatorship controlled countries. In the U.S.,
overzealous law enforcement agents might also be tempted to mentally or
physically "force" a confession from a suspect who is truly innocent.

To prevent that from happening in the United States, the Fifth Amendment
provides the right to remain silent and not answer questions that might
incriminate an individual. An accused person is deemed innocent until
proven guilty, and the burden of providing the proof is on the accuser via
due process of law.

The Miranda case is used as a precedent to illustrate the strength of the
Fifth Amendment. Miranda was convicted by his "voluntary" admission of
guilt under pressure by police officers, but the court found the admission
of guilt was not admissible as evidence because the accused was not aware
of his right to remain silent. ("No one shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself"). Police are required to "read the rights" to a person
before any questioning is used to determine guilt (not immediately after
arrest as most people believe), to make sure the accused is aware of his
rights. But after being advised of the rights, anything said by the accused
can be used against that person in court.

When police have sufficient reason (probable cause) to believe criminal
activity is being planned, underway, or already executed, they can obtain a
court order under the rules and procedures listed in 18 USCS 2516. In such
a situation the search is "reasonable," for a specific person and purpose.
When a court order authorizes the wiretap or bug, evidence obtained
therefrom is admissible in court.

                           Eavesdropping Devices

Title 18 USCS 2510 lists the definitions of wiretapping and bugging devices
in lengthy legal format. The listed items described, and manner in which
they are used, can be condensed to read -- "any device or apparatus used to
listen in on private communications in any manner".

                                Advertising

Advertisements are legal when they suggest personal use such as calling
from a distant phone to check on your home by listening for sounds of an
intruder, or to listen for a baby crying in a separate bedroom of the
house, or sound magnifying devices that can be used for bird watching or
hunting, or any other personal use which doesn't violate another person's
private communications and confidentiality. Anyone can advertise and sell
wiretapping equipment and other forms of surveillance equipment for
"personal use." When an advertisement says, hints at, suggests or implies
illegal use, the advertiser could be charged with violation of the law.

There are many advertisements in Popular Science, Soldier of Fortune, and
similar magazines selling surveillance equipment of various kinds that
strongly suggests a person can listen to private conversations in one form
or another. The manufacturing, advertising, sale, and use of any device
that is specifically manufactured and used to intercept or record private
and confidential conversation of other parties without their knowledge and
consent is illegal. Upon conviction, the person or firm placing such an
advertisement could forfeit his entire inventory of such equipment under
confiscation law (Section 2513) and face a large fine.

                          Design and Intended Use

The case of United States vs. Bast (1974, 161 App DC 312, 495 F2d 138)
stated an important definition, "manufacture of device may be illegal
because it is primarily used for surreptitious interception, even though
device may have innocent uses."

Another case, United States vs. Schweihs (1978, CA5 Fla 569 F2d 965)
mentioned that Congress intended to ban such devices as martini olive
transmitters, spike mikes, and microphones disguised as wrist watches and
fountain pens, which, by the nature of their design, are obviously intended
to be used for covert listening, without prohibiting possession of other
legitimate electronic devices merely because they are small or may be used
for wire-tapping or eavesdropping.

                        Wiretapping by Court orders

Law enforcement agents must obtain a court order to tap a phone line or
otherwise intercept private communication to obtain admissible evidence
against criminal activity.  Without a court order, it is not admissible as
evidence. (18 USCS 2515)

A court order is not easily obtained. Other evidence (or "probable cause")
is required first to indicate criminal activity is being planned or in
progress and a wire tap or "bug" is essential to obtain information
concerning the known or strongly suspected criminal activity. This legal
requirement prevents overzealous police from going on fishing expeditions -
tapping and listening to conversations at random ("unreasonable searches")
until they found something that might indicate criminal activity or could be
used as incriminating evidence.

The following Sections spell out the details of his law. Notice that USCS
2513 offers a reward for information leading to an arrest for a violation
of covert wiretapping or bugging, in any way.

                           Title 18 USCS  2511.

Interception and disclosure of wire or oral communications prohibited.

This section is too lengthy to quote verbatim, but deals with the
definitions of any person who "willfully" intercepts, directly or
indirectly, any form of private communications without the consent of the
parties thereto, and or discloses same to other parties, and the penalty
for same, which "shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not
more than five years, or both."

Paragraph (1)(a),(b) and (c) of this law says with words to the effect
that, if the communication is overheard by accident or by the performance
of a person's normal employment such as a switchboard operator or telephone
repairman or any other person during their normal job activity without
willful intent to eavesdrop, it is not a violation of this section.

The following paragraphs are of interest to CrimeFighters:

"(2)(c) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter (18 USCS 2510 et seq.)
for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral
communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of
the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such
interception."

"(2)(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter (18 USCS 2510 et seq.)
for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral
communication where such person is a party to the communication or one of
the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such
interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of
committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or
laws of the United States or of any State or for the purpose of committing
any other injurious act."
                                * * * * * *

Unofficial interpretation: Private conversations may be (legally) recorded
by one of the parties to the conversation, such as in business calls where
the recording is made for convenience of one or more of the parties to the
conversation and not intended to be used for illegal purposes.

"Under color of law" means for law enforcement purposes.

A CrimeFighter who carries a bug to record a conversation between a suspect
and himself, with the intent to make a recording of their conversation,
would seem to comply with the law as it's not illegal to make a recording
of his own conversation. He doesn't need a court order or authorization for
same. Another defense might be that it's not being made for illegal
purposes (blackmail, for example) but rather for law enforcement purposes.
Or, if it's made with police knowledge and a warrant it would be "under
color of law."  As such it would be admissible as evidence.

Hypothetical situation:  Supposing a CrimeFighter sets out to meet and
become friendly with a known drug dealer called "Bob." During subsequent
phone calls to and from Bob, the CrimeFighter makes (legal) recordings of
his conversations and hints to Bob he'd like to make some money being a
mule to transport drugs. When the conversation includes information
concerning drugs, and proposals from Bob to become part of the drug scene,
the first step has been established.

After the conversation is recorded, the next step is to take the recording
to the FBI. Let them listen to it. The tape recording is for law
enforcement purposes. It isn't "misuse" of the information.

At this point, the CrimeFighter might suggest to the FBI case agent that he
would like to help them obtain further evidence for rewards available.
Before a CrimeFighter does anything illegal, he should make sure he is
officially authorized as an undercover agent working for law enforcement.
Get a written agreement as to your role and specific rewards promised.

There's a chance that "Bob" might be an undercover cop or another
CrimeFighter. If both have disclosed their information to the FBI, both
will be told to "back off."  No harm has been done, and no time wasted.

If Bob happens to be a local cop setting up a sting operation with you as
the stingee, and arrests you, you'll have the FBI as a witness that it was
a double sting operation - and help get you off the hook.

(That's also a good reason to coordinate CrimeFighter activity with your
CrimeFighters' group -- to avoid embarrassment and duplication of effort.)

The recordings unofficially made by the CrimeFighter may or may not be
admissible as evidence in court, but if the FBI hears tantalizing
information on the first tape, they could probably convince a judge to
authorize a legal wiretap for further taped conversations which could be
used for evidence.

The following law can be useful when analyzing advertisements of vendors
who either manufacture or sell bugs and bugging devices.

                            Title 18 USCS 2512

"Manufacture, distribution, possession, and advertising of wire or oral
communication intercepting devices prohibited.

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter (18 USCS 2510
et seq.) any person who willfully -

(a) sends through the mail, or sends or carries in interstate or foreign
commerce, any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having
reason to know the design of such device renders it primarily useful for
the purpose of surreptitious interception of wire or oral communications;

(b) manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells any electronic,
mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the
design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the
surreptitious interception of wire or oral communications, and that such
device or any component thereof has been or will be sent through the mail
or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or

(c) places in any newspaper, magazine, handbill, or other publication any
advertisement of -

(i) any electronic, mechanical, or other device knowing or having reason to
know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the
purpose of surreptitious interception of wire or oral communications; or

(ii) any other electronic, mechanical, or other device, where such
advertisement promotes the use of such device for the purpose of
surreptitious interception of wire or oral communications, knowing or
having reason to know that such advertisement will be sent through the mail
or transported in interstate or foreign commerce,

shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both.

(2) It shall not be unlawful under this section for -

(a) a communications common carrier or an officer, agent, or employer of,
or a person under contract with, a communications common carrier, in the
normal course of communications common carrier's business, or

(b) an officer, agent, or employee of, or a person under contract with, the
United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, in the normal
course of the activities of the united States, a State, or a political
subdivision thereof, to send through the mail, send or carry in interstate
or foreign commerce, or manufacture, assemble, possess, or sell any
electronic, mechanical, or other device knowing or having reason to know
that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose
of surreptitious interception of wire or oral communications."

                            Title 18 USCS 2513.

"(5) 18 USCS Section 2513  Reward for information concerning Wire Tapping
devices used, sold or manufactured in violation of Interception of Wire or
Oral or Electronic Communications (wiretapping or deliberate eavesdropping
on private communications with or without criminal intent).

Confiscation of wire or oral communication intercepting devices.

Any electronic, mechanical, or other device used, sent, carried,
manufactured, assembled, possessed, sold, or advertised in violation of
section 2511 or section 2512 of this chapter (18 USCS 2511 or 2512) may be
seized and forfeited to the United States. All provisions of law relating to

(1) the seizure, summary and judicial forfeiture, and condemnation of
vessels, vehicles, merchandise, and baggage for violations of the customs
laws contained in title 19 of the United States Code (19 USCS 1 et seq),

(2) the disposition of such vessels, vehicles, merchandise, and baggage or
the proceeds from the sale thereof,

(3) the remission or mitigation of such forfeiture,

(4) the compromise of claims, and

(5) the award of compensation to informers in respect of such forfeitures,
shall apply to seizures and forfeitures incurred, or alleged to have been
incurred, under the provisions of this section, insofar as applicable and
not inconsistent with the provisions of this section; except that such
duties as are imposed upon the collector of customs or any other person
with respect to seizure and forfeiture of vessels, vehicles, merchandise
and baggage under the provisions of the customs laws contained in Title 19
of the United States Code (19 USCS 1 et seq) shall be performed with
respect to seizure and forfeiture of electronic, mechanical, or other
intercepting devices under this section by such officers, agents, or other
persons as may be authorized or designated for that purpose by the Attorney
General." (Added June 19, 1968


                        Not Admissible as Evidence

Title 18 USCS 2515

"Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral or electronic
communications

Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of
the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be
received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or
before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body,
legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or
a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information is in
violation of this chapter (18 USCS 2510 et seq.)."
(As of June 19, 1968)
                                * * * * * *

Comments: Many people and firms advertise electronic bugs and sophisticated
bugging equipment. While their advertising methods may seem to be in
violation of the above laws, most have a legal disclaimer in the catalog
that says, in effect, "The electronic devices in this catalog are for
security, demonstrational and scientific purposes only. They are not to be
used for surreptitious interception of oral communications and are sold
subject to public law 90-351 Title 3, 18 USCS 2511 and all other pertinent
laws, regulations and ordinances. It is the sole responsibility of the
buyer (not the seller!) to ascertain through competent legal counsel how
any law or laws may apply to the use of any items purchased and act
accordingly."

That lets them off the legal hook. Unfortunately, not everyone reads,
understands, or pays attention to the fine print. All they see is dozens of
ads selling the items. They assume it must be O.K. to buy and use them if
they can make them and sell them. That assumption is not correct.

The main thing for CrimeFighters to remember is, using such devices without
legal sanction (under color of law) is illegal. The only exception is the
instance in which one or more of the parties involved give their consent.

A CrimeFighter who is one of the parties of a conversation may make a legal
recording for his personal use. Wiretaps made without the consent of any of
the parties involved, whether a recording is made or not made, is illegal.

                            F9 for next Chapter