home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!telecom-request
- Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1992 20:28:13 -0500
- From: Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo)
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
- Subject: Eavesdropping on the British Royal Family
- Message-ID: <telecom12.694.5@eecs.nwu.edu>
- Organization: TELECOM Digest
- Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
- Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
- X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
- X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
- X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 694, Message 5 of 13
- Lines: 28
-
- In a previous posting, I had remarked that it did not appear to be
- illegal to eavesdrop on cellular or cordless calls in the United
- Kingdom. An article in the September 2nd {International Express} (an
- affiliate of the London {Daily Express}) appears to indicate
- otherwise.
-
- The article quotes a spokesman from the British Home Office that a
- prosecution under the 1985 Interception of Communications Act may lie
- against a ham radio operator who eavesdropped on and recorded a
- wireless telephone conversation reportedly between the Princess of
- Wales and an admirer.
-
- "A Home Office spokesman said: 'Under the 1985 Act a conviction at
- crown court could mean two years imprisonment plus unlimited fines.
-
- "'The criteria for bringing a charge are met when a person
- intentionally intercepts a communication message in the course of its
- transmission.
-
- "'The only time it is legal to intercept a call is if one of the
- parties involved agrees. To my knowledge, there is no time limit for
- bringing a prosecution under the Act.'"
-
- The conversation was reportedly recorded by Cyril Reenan, a retired
- bank manager, who has a large radio installation in his L 200,000 home
- in Oxford.
-
-