Ham Radio/Ham Radio CD-ROM (Emerald Software) (1995).ISO/news/inham08/954

Text File | 1979-12-31 | 14KB | 294 lines

Reply-To: bu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: INFO-HAMS Digest V89 #954
To: [e-mail]

INFO-HAMS Digest            Thu, 30 Nov 89       Volume 89 : Issue 954

Today's Topics:
                   military call signs.........etc.
                    My backyard, your backyard ...
                          Scanner Law Guide
                    WANTED!! IC-04AT MODS Please!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 89 17:22:55 GMT
From: oliveb!mipos3!pcocd2![e-mail]  (Justin Masters ~)
Subject: military call signs.........etc.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (EUGENE BALINSKI) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (DUBE TODD) writes:
>> Several prople have correctly cited the freedom to listen to any radio communications.  I support that.  However, Balinski asked about the aircraft home base,
>> etc.  While the radio transmissions he heard were obviously unclassified, the
>>association of the call signs with aircraft type, unit of assignment and home
>>base is classified information. That is why I asked why he was interested in
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>    Classified information ?? ARE YOU SURE ??  Could this come under the
>heading of "GEE, I THINK it should be classified". An awful lot of things
>that people THINK are classified are not. Let me give you an example of
>why I believe you are wrong.

When I was in the Air Force as a crypto tech, we were told not to divulge
anything, with the assumption that everything was being monitored.  True,
small pieces of information could be unclassified, but put together, they
could divulge some information that could be considered harmful to the nations
ability to maintain a strategic advantage.

There have been times that I've had to hang up the phone to keep someone from
blabbing more than they already have.

[stuff about information gathering deleted]

>  In my original posting I was only looking for similar info. NOTHING
>CLASSIFIED.

That may be true, but your piecing it together and putting it on the net in
one piece may be a violation.

That can seem close minded, sure, but the basic idea is that if you want the
info, you should hunt for it, not be given it.

>
>
>>                                                   Regards,
>>                                                   Dube Todd
>
>BTW For those who think my original posting was "DANGEROUS", you should
>see this months (DEC '89) Monitoring Times. It has a very nice article
>about NELLIS AFB, home of the STEALTH programs, along with some interesting
>frequencies !!
>
Oh really?  I'll have to pick up a copy. :)

>                                                          73
>                                                     Gene Balinski
>
>                   <STANDARD DISCLAIMER APPLIES>

                         (ditto for me)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is my car the only one in America where | Justin "Ice Cream Monster" Masters
someone breaks in and turns up my radio |
every time I park? - Steven Wright      |  [e-mail]

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

Date: 30 Nov 89 13:29:24 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx![e-mail]  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: My backyard, your backyard ...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David I. Emery) writes:

>It seemed very clear to one poster that it was improper to make use of
>services transmitted over the airwaves (such as pay tv) to which
>one does not subscribe.

My point was that it is illegal to receive the services without *paying*
for them. The point I was trying to make is that you have a right to
receive anything, but that a victimization occurs if you receive a service
that is intended as a revenue-generating product or service and you do not
pay the fair market value for the service.

Say that XYS Company is in the business of broadcasting a signal over a
satellite transponder that is intended for subscribers, and that the
subscribers pay a fee to get the service. Say that the XYS Company's
broadcast is a training program for police officers, and that XYS Company
targets the satellite broadcast to police departments around the country.
The departments pay for the service, and everyone is happy.

Now you come along and set up your satellite dish. You have the technical
ability to receive the signal. Now, here is the "trick": Even though XYS
Company does not target their broadcast at individual citizens, even though
they do not intend that the show be watched by ordinary citizens, if you wish
to receive their program, you have the right to do so. You have the right to
receive the signal, even if XYS Company does not want you to, and you have
this right because they are broadcasting the signal over the public's radio
spectrum. The only caveat is that to be legal, you must pay for the program,
just like the intended audience.

Think of it like a performance given in a public place: The group giving the
performance may have a specific target audience in mind, and they may have
advertised for a certain group of people to buy a ticket, but they cannot
legally exclude any member of the public who may wish to attend....but
everyone who attends, regardless of whether or not they are the intended
audience, must pay for the show.

Since the XYS Company is using the public airwaves for its transmission,
anyone who desires to receive must be allowed to receive the signal, but
they must pay just like the intended audience.

Now, say that the XYS Comapany uses two-way commercial radios for its
business communications. These signals go over the public airwaves, and the
signals themselves are not part of the programing they offer to any target
market as a revenue-generating service. In this case, any citizen has the
right to receive the signals, and they DO NOT have to pay for them, because
XYS Comapany does not expect anyone else or any other group to pay for them.
These two-way communications are NOT a service offered for sale to any
group. However, they are boradcast over the public's radio spectrum, so anyone
in the public has a right to receive the signals.

In this case I would make an analogy to people carrying on a conversation
in public. If two people are discussing something in public, and I overhear
it, that is just the way it goes. Their conversation was not intended for
sale, so I don't pay for it. They may not want me to hear it, but this is
the risk you run when you discuss something in public.

>I find it hard to understand why if I have an absolute "right"
>to interpret voltages induced across my backyard aluminum that that
>"right" ends just because somebody has defined their communication
>as something I must pay for.

I hope this posting clears up any misunderstanding that you obviously had
as regards my position on this issue.

Your "right to receive" does NOT end just because someone intends that
certain programming be paid for by the receiver. You still have the
"right to receive".....the program provider cannot stop you from receiving
the signal, but you should pay for the service, just like the intended
audience.

You have an absolute right, IMHO, to receive ANYTHING that is broadcast
over the public's radio spectrum, but this does not mean that you can
get away with not paying for certain services!

>......then why is it not perfectly appropriate for Congress
>to define certain essentially private communications as restricted in the
>same sense as pay-for-reception transmissions are?

Again, IMHO, the only caveat in pay-for-reception is that you should pay for
services that are intended as programming for revenue generation. The
providers MAY NOT DENY YOUR RIGHT TO RECEIVE, but your right to receive does
NOT guarantee that your can receive everything for FREE!

HOWEVER, you do have the right to receive anything that is broadcast over
the public's airwaves. You cannot be denied the right to receive any signal
that your can get into your antenna!

>Why, in short, should I have a right to listen to your phone calls but
>not watch HBO's video ?

You have the right to do BOTH....since I do not offer my cellular or
cordless phone calls as a revenue-generating service, you do not have to
pay for them. However, since HBO does offer their signal as a revenue
generating service, you must pay for it if your receive it!



Neal

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

Date: 30 Nov 89 17:42:38 GMT
From: att!cbnewsc![e-mail]  (Bob Parnass, AJ9S)
Subject: Scanner Law Guide
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert Horvitz) writes:
>
> There's been so much discussion of the legal issues of scanning
> this month that it may be time to remind everyone that the
> "ANARC Guide to US Monitoring Laws" is the only current and
> complete collection of state scanner laws in print.

(I would post this followup to 'rec.radio.shortwave' also but
Bell Labs' netnews machines do not yet receive this newsgroup.)

I second Bob's recommendation. Here is a repost of my earlier
book review:


       BOOK REVIEW: ANARC GUIDE TO U.S. MONITORING LAWS

                    by Bob Parnass, AJ9S

   Do you as a monitoring hobbyist have the right to receive
   whatever  radio  signals  you want in the privacy of your
   own home?  No -- not any more.  So say the infamous Elec-
   tronic  Communications  Privacy Act of 1986 and a growing
   number of state laws which took away this  freedom.   You
   can  find  out  about these restrictions in a new 39 page
   paperback, ANARC Guide to U. S. Monitoring Laws.

   If you are new to the radio hobby, you might not be fami-
   liar  with  ANARC.  ANARC is not a company.  ANARC is the
   Association of North American Radio Clubs, a well  inten-
   tioned  umbrella  organization of volunteers who look out
   for the best interests of shortwave and scanner listeners
   as  well as TV, FM, and MW DXers.  With the able Bob Hor-
   vitz at the helm,  ANARC  led  the  fight  against  ECPA,
   against FCC proposals to let Part 15 devices run hog wild
   over the spectrum, and other issues of concern  to  radio
   hobbyists.

   The ANARC guide presents the text of  the  ECPA  and  the
   restrictive anti scanner laws of 14 states.  Author Frank
   Terranella, ANARC's legal counsel and  a  radio  hobbyist
   from  New  Jersey,  does  a  good  job of translating the
   legalese jargon into understandable English for the aver-
   age  person.  He even cites a few real cases in which the
   laws were applied.

   The guide sells for $7.50, over 19 cents per page.   This
   may  seem  expensive, but where else can you get all this
   legal information in  one  place?   I've  seen  only  one
   source  which  surveyed  radio  listening  laws.  Several
   years ago, before ECPA, Bearcat's SCAN organization  pub-
   lished  a  small  pamphlet  with  very terse summaries of
   state scanner laws.

   As the author laments in the foreword, "it is unfortunate
   that  a  guide  such  as this is necessary."  Do you need
   this guide?  I think you do.  Before you bring a  scanner
   along  on vacation, you ought to know the scanner laws in
   the states through which you drive.  Being  a  ham  radio
   operator  exempts  you from Indiana's mobile scanner law,
   but it would be a good idea to carry a copy of the law in
   your car to show police if stopped.  I recall when WA2PVK
   had a 19" whip on his car, and was stopped by a policeman
   in New Jersey to see if his car contained a scanner.  New
   Jersey doesn't exempt hams.

   The ECPA stirred up a hornet's net of protest, but hobby-
   ists   couldn't   compete   with  powerful,  well  funded
   lobbyists.  It's too late to  argue  against  passage  of
   ECPA  --  it's law now.  Several radio laws are difficult
   to understand and the hobby needs an  author  skilled  in
   the  legal  profession and familiar with radio monitoring
   to explain them.  This book suits the need well.

   ANARC Guide to U.S.  Monitoring  Laws  is  available  for
   $7.50  from ANARC Publications, P.O. Box 462, Northfield,
   MN 55057.
--
============================================================================
Bob Parnass, AJ9S - AT&T Bell Laboratories - att!ihuxz!parnass [phone]

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

Date: 30 Nov 89 14:38:07 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpscdc![e-mail]  (Mark Espinosa)
Subject: WANTED!! IC-04AT MODS Please!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

     The subject of "mod's" for the IC-04AT have probably been brought  up
   before here on the NET, but for some reason I have managed to miss them
   all. So, if some kind ol radio amateur could dig in to his or her files
   one more time, and post them for me, it would be muchly apprieciated. I
   am specifically looking for the mod's that pertain to out of band oper-
   ation, and RX audio volume improvement.

     Please post or e-mail, and thanks.

                                                 Mark Espinosa/WA6RGD




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

End of INFO-HAMS Digest V89 Issue #954
**************************************