From the Associated Press, as reported in the {Los Angeles Times},

Sunday, January 1, 1995:

Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges

Memphis, Tenn. - A woman listening to a police scanner she had gotten

for Christmas picked up a conversation over cordless telephones and

heard what turned out to be a murder plot unfolding, investigators

say.

Donna McGee tipped sheriff's deputies to what she had heard, and on

Thursday a woman and her boyfriend were arrested and accused of conspiring

to kill the woman's husband and make it look like a burglary gone awry.

"It appears their motive was to collect the insurance money and get

out of debt, and for them to continue their lives together," said

Sheriff's Capt. Joe Ball.

Jacqueline Lee Greene, 32, and Christopher Scott Davis, 21, were charged

with conspiracy to murder her husband, James Kenneth Greene. Davis

was also charged with criminal attempt to commit murder.

McGee said the scanner chatter she heard Wednesday caught her attention fast.

"I heard this man say: 'Are you sure you want to go through with

this?' She said she was sure, and asked him if he was sure," McGee

said Friday. "She asked him: 'Do you really love me enough to kill

for me?' He said: 'Yes, I do. Do you have any doubts?'"

The man and woman talked about having Davis enter the Greene house

through a window, McGee said.

"She said if he came through the unlocked patio door, there wouldn't

be any sign of forced entry," McGee said. "She said: 'If you come

through the window, Kenny will hear you and he'll come and that's when

you shoot him.'"

By this time some of McGee's family was listening. When the woman on

the scanner called her daughter, McGee's daughter recognized a playmate's

name. Eventually, the McGees said, they realized the identity of the

intended victim.

Greene "was just absolutely amazed, scared, shocked" when sheriff's

deputies informed him of the plot against him, Ball said.

Cordless telephones use radio waves to communicate between the handset

and the base. Those radio waves can easily be intercepted by a police

scanner.

Christopher Zguris's profile photo

Christopher Zguris

Jan 5, 1995, 10:12:00 PM

to

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's the first time I have ever heard

> of cordless phone monitoring being dismissed as 'nothing illegal' because

> it was 'random scanning'. You'd think they would rely on previous court

> decisions stating that cordless phones do not have the same protection

> as cellular phones ... or something ... but isn't all scanner listening

===============================

> essentially 'random'? PAT]

====================

Once you have a scanner programmed to scan 46-49 MHz and find a

neighbor(s) cordless phone, you're going to keep the scanner

programmed for that range. The only thing in the cordless-phone

frequency range are cordless phones, no police, no EMS, no fire

department, no Secret Service, no FBI, no broadcasts from Air Force

One (Okay, cordless baby monitors, wireless headphones, and wireless

intercoms and other stuff like that also broadcast in that range). If

someone has their scanner set in _that_ range they're probably looking

for cordless phones, no? Of course, wireless headphones _also_ use

that range, maybe _that's_ what is being "randomly" scanned for :-) ?

Cell phones are another matter, a listener with a scanner modified to

get that range will hear little "snippets" of conversations before the

phone changes frequencies or cells, that's definately "random". But as

for cordless phones, most/all will stay on the same frequency for the

entire call, much to the delight of the avid snooper with nothing

better to do.

Christopher Zguris czg...@mcimail.com

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The most bizarre instance of this I have

yet to encounter or hear about was reported to me the other day. It seems

some old biddy with nothing better to do was listening in on her neighbor

using her cordless phone via her scanner. She overheard what she believed

was this woman discussing a plan to murder someone and she reported it to

the police. The cops had a big raid of the house, lots of hoopla, the

whole routine. It turns out the neighbor and the person she was talking

with were *rehearsing lines for a school play they were both in*. They

were reading their scripts over the phone and learning their lines. The

cops let it slip out who it was that called them; now Biddy has something

else to do with her time and money. She had to hire an attorney to

defend herself in a suit against her for bearing false witness against

her neighbor.

Cordless phone monitoring is merely the 1990's version of what nosy people

used to do many years ago, long before cordless phones were invented and

when four and eight party telephone lines were common. In those days -- I

am talking 1930-50 now -- when several people shared the same telephone

pair in a 'party line' arrangement, the ringing voltage for the bell was

sent at different frequencies (or electrical cycles) so that one bell on

the party line would ring but the rest would not. The trouble is, all the

other bell clappers would give a slight 'tick' when the ringing voltage

came down the line. Unless you were standing right next to the phone

listening closely, you'd never hear the 'tick' from your bell clapper

when someone else's phone was actually ringing. The way the snoops

overcame that 'problem' was to set their phone instrument inside a

galvanized wash-tub. That would amplify the 'click' by several magnitudes

so that wherever they were in their house, on their front porch or

whatever, they would hear it. Someone down the street gets a phone

call; everyone else on the block would hear that 'click click' from

their own phone. Remember, these were the very old-fashioned, all

steel, very heavy desk phones of the 1940's. When they heard that

clicking from the bell clapper, in their house they would go, if they

were not there already, and soon the legitimate called party would

have two or three eavesdroppers on the instruments at their homes

listening to the conversation, typically with a rag over the mouthpiece

to cover up background noise at their end.

When I was twelve years old, I had a freind who was the same age. We

had a private line but his parents had a four-party line. We would

call each other from time to time and have the sort of conversations

on the phone that twelve year old boys have with each other. One day

the call got sort of raunchy from his end, and right in the middle

of it came that unmistakeable click of a reciever somewhere going

off hook. Most party line subscribers were courteous; they would say

'excuse me' and replace their recievers, or maybe just hang up without

speaking, but at least you heard that *second* click to assure yourself

they were gone from the line. This time the off hook click was heard

and I started to shush my friend. "Better shut up! Someone's listening."

"Oh," he said gleefully, "that's just Mrs. Winchell. That old witch

has been our party line neighbor for years! Why, if she doesn't know

everything we do and talk about over here by now, she never will find

out!" ... pause, shocked silence on my end ... then that awaited second

click as Mrs. Winchell replaced her receiver. PAT]

Benjamin P. Carter's profile photo

Benjamin P. Carter

Jan 6, 1995, 3:27:40 AM

to

Paul_Glog...@xerox.com writes:

> Cordless telephones use radio waves to communicate between the handset

> and the base. Those radio waves can easily be intercepted by a police

> scanner.

> Ball said there was nothing illegal in McGee's listening to the cordless

> phone conversations because it was a random scanning.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's the first time I have ever heard

> of cordless phone monitoring being dismissed as 'nothing illegal' because

> it was 'random scanning'. You'd think they would rely on previous court

> decisions stating that cordless phones do not have the same protection

> as cellular phones ... or something ... but isn't all scanner listening

> essentially 'random'? PAT]

It's random within the categories (police, fire, airport, etc.)

corresponding to allocated frequency bands. At least it's random when

you first turn the scanner on. After a while, though, you will have

learned which specific frequencies are of interest, and you can set

the scanner to ignore all other frequencies.

I believe it's illegal for a store to sell a scanner capable of

picking up cellular phone conversations. Cordless phones however can

listen in on each other if they are nearby; and any law to prevent

scanners from picking up those frequencies would not really insure

privacy of cordless phone conversations.

Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges

6 views

Subscribe

Joel B Levin's profile photo

Joel B Levin

Jan 5, 1995, 3:03:13 PM

to

In article <telecom...@eecs.nwu.edu> Paul_Glog...@xerox.com writes:

> Ball said there was nothing illegal in McGee's listening to the cordless

> phone conversations because it was a random scanning.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's the first time I have ever heard

> of cordless phone monitoring being dismissed as 'nothing illegal' because

> it was 'random scanning'. You'd think they would rely on previous court

> decisions stating that cordless phones do not have the same protection

> as cellular phones ... or something ... but isn't all scanner listening

> essentially 'random'? PAT]

You're kidding, right? This is policeman ("Sheriff Capt.") talking,

not a lawyer or judge. Count on the court decisions coming up when

the defense starts arguing in court.

Regards,

JBL

Ben Carter internet address: b...@netcom.com

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only is it illegal for a store to

sell such units, it is often times against corporate policy to even

discuss the possibility of modification. Take Radio Shack as one

example: it used to be when you bought any kind of radio from them,

whether it was a CB, or a scanner, the clerks took much delight in

handing you a customer-prepared ('a customer brought it in and left

it here', or so they claimed) 'mod sheet' telling how to do the

various mods to their equipment. In the era of CB, the mods would be

to get the radio up to ten meters (what traces to cut on the board

and what chips had to have pins held high; and what cores to adjust

to get the radio to oscillate [or 'key-up'] when you got it that far

off the original center frequency); with the old crystal-controlled

scanners the mods handed out by RS clerks would discuss ways of

swapping out the master crystal with another one to get 'secret

frequencies'; with one of their very early digital scanners there

was a programming error in the ROM which allowed the user to punch

in the decimal point a couple extra times and get the scanner to

receive stuff in the 350-400 megs area -- now commonplace in scanners

but back then 'secret government radio stations' -- oh, the RS clerks

knew them all. Then about ten years ago as 800 meg scanners were

becoming more common, those mysterious mod sheets ("I dunno who left

it here in the store, but we made some copies for customers ..")

discussed how to change RS scanners to pick up cellular phones by

clipping a diode here and there.

But then the feds came to Fort Worth one day with a blunt message

for all concerned: "Can the shit!" said the FCC. You betcha! Within

a few days a memo was hanging on the back wall in the office of

every Radio Shack store which said there would be no further discussion

of 'mods' with customers under any circumstances. Not only that, if

the customer mentioned making mods, the clerk was to *decline the

sale* rather than possibly be later found to be part of a conspiracy

or a scheme. And they are serious about it. RS corporate policy now

is any clerk who so much as discusses with a customer the possibility

that an item sold by RS might concievably be used in an illegal way

is subject to discharge. No bull or backtalk about freedom of speech

and all that. They are *so* serious about this policy now that about

six months ago, they pulled their two top-of-the-line scanners off

the market for retrofitting when someone found out there was another

programming error in the ROM that customers could 'abuse'. And where

before all their CB radios were using the Motorola 02-A chip for channel

(or frequency) selection (or sometimes a similar chip from Uniden), now

all that stuff is in the ROM, or read-only memory.

The feds got after Motorola on account of that 02-A chip also, and

the FCC made them quit manufacturing it. Easily programmable with a snip

snip here and a drop of solder there, all the guys were using them for

pirate radios. Uniden also got a rap on the knuckles from Uncle when

the company came out with its 'Digi-Scan' unit. PAT]

Steve Brack's profile photo

Steve Brack

Jan 6, 1995, 1:46:06 PM

to

{} in quoted text are mine. - SSB

In article <telecom...@eecs.nwu.edu> Paul_Glog...@xerox.com

wrote:

> From the Associated Press, as reported in the {Los Angeles Times},

> Sunday, January 1, 1995:

> Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges

> Memphis, Tenn. - A woman listening to a police scanner she had gotten

> for Christmas picked up a conversation over cordless telephones and

> heard what turned out to be a murder plot unfolding, investigators

> say.

> Cordless telephones use radio waves to communicate between the handset

> and the base. Those radio waves can easily be intercepted by a police

> scanner.

> Ball {a police official} said there was nothing illegal in McGee's listening

> to the cordless phone conversations because it was a random scanning.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's the first time I have ever heard

> of cordless phone monitoring being dismissed as 'nothing illegal' because

> it was 'random scanning'. You'd think they would rely on previous court

> decisions stating that cordless phones do not have the same protection

> as cellular phones ... or something ... but isn't all scanner listening

> essentially 'random'? PAT]

Courtesy of t...@gate.net (Terry Steinford)

Public Law 103-414 signed Oct 25, 1994 (was H.R. 4922)

SEC. 202. CORDLESS TELEPHONES.

(a) Definitions. - Section 2510 of title 18, United States

Code, is amended -

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `, but such term does not

include` and all that follows through `base unit`; and

(2) in paragraph (12), by striking subparagraph (A) and

redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) as subparagraphs

(A), (B), and (C), respectively.

(b) Penalty. - Section 2511 of title 18, United States Code, is

amended -

(1) in subsection (4)(b)(i) by inserting `a cordless

telephone communication that is transmitted between the

cordless telephone handset and the base unit,` after `cellular

telephone communication,`; and

(2) in subsection (4)(b)(ii) by inserting `a cordless

telephone communication that is transmitted between the

cordless telephone handset and the base unit,` after `cellular

telephone communication,`.

With a nip here and a tuck there, apparently the government has made

listening in on cordless phones illegal.

Steve Brack, Consultant sbr...@eng.utoledo.edu

Toledo, OH 43613-1605 sbr...@cse.utoledo.edu

MY OWN OPINIONS Tel: +1 419 534 7349

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, this is news to me. I guess we

should all take note that listening to cordless phones is now just

as illegal as listening to cellular. I had not been aware until now

that the law had been changed to include cordless. Anyone else? PAT]

Richard Jay Solomon's profile photo

Richard Jay Solomon

Jan 7, 1995, 9:32:35 PM

to

Patrick:

In Digest #9 you ran an AP story, "Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to

Criminal Charges." Is your bracketed comment in #11 that this was an

overheard play rehearsal related to the original story? Am I missing

something here? I never saw an official press item about the play

rehearsal, just your bracketed comments?

Richard Solomon

[TELECOM Digest Egitor's Note: That part (the overhearing of play

rehersal and the inappropriate actions taken) was a separate incident

not related at all to the originally reported event. PAT]

Gary Sanders's profile photo

Gary Sanders

Jan 8, 1995, 6:18:23 PM

to

In article <telecom...@eecs.nwu.edu>, Christopher Zguris <0004854540@

mcimail.com> wrote:

> Cell phones are another matter, a listener with a scanner modified to

> get that range will hear little "snippets" of conversations before the

> phone changes frequencies or cells, that's definately "random". But as

> for cordless phones, most/all will stay on the same frequency for the

> entire call, much to the delight of the avid snooper with nothing

> better to do.

You have been listening to to many cell phone sales guys. First, many

scanners don't need to be modified (although new ones may) to listen to

cell phones. They come out of the box with cellular. As for snippets I

would beg to differ, I know some one who is an active cell listner

(-:)) and depending on your local cell configuration you will hear

most of all phone calls that are placed. "my friend" listened to

someone trying to explain how secure a cell phone is becuase its

allways changing freq. Was interesting considering the entire call

was 15 minutes long and never changed cells/freq.

As for me, I dont have a scanner. I have an R7000 communications

receiver -:)

Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR) gary.w....@att.com

AT&T Bell Labs 614.860.5965

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know where you shop, but all the

Radio Shack units make a point of cutting out the cellular frequencies.

So do quite a few others, and they have for a few years now. PAT]

Michael J Graven's profile photo

Michael J Graven

Jan 8, 1995, 6:27:23 PM

to

Pat wrote:

> Cordless phone monitoring is merely the 1990's version of what nosy people

> used to do many years ago. [...]

I am reminded of my great-uncle, who lived on an out-of-the-way farm

near Shepherdsville, Kentucky, in the early part of the century.

According to his sister, my grandmother, their house was the first

drop on the loop ("two shorts on six, please, operator.") Dwight

appeared to be a bit ahead of his time: he inserted a knife switch

into the loop after the home telephone so he could cut off the

eavesdroppers while he was talking with his girlfriend.

A man after your own heart, Pat.

Michael J. Graven m...@ulysses.homer.att.com

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Telco used or uses the same concept to

afford absolute privacy from being overheard by extensions on the same

line. They call it an 'exclusion key'. Remember the old two-line turn

button phones and how the switchook plunger on the left side was made

a little differently than the one on the right side? You would lift it

to put the line you were *not* talking on on hold ... well some single

line phones had that funny plunger on the left side also, but in those

cases it would split the pair. To provide an exclusion, one of the

phones on the premises had to serve as the 'master phone'. The pair from

the telephone exchange came to that instrument first. It came in on

the first (red/green) pair, the looped back out on the second (yellow/

black) pair. Lifting that plunger a quarter inch or so forced a couple

of metal contacts inside the phone to spread apart, thus preventing the

loop out from ever getting out of the phone. From the phone it went

out on the second pair, *then* back to the demarc where normal distribu-

tion began. When the user of the master phone wanted no one else to hear

what was being said, he would raise that plunger; instantly all the other

extensions in the house went dead.

When old style answering services were very common, and a subscriber line

was simply bridged or jumpered in the central office to a pair going to

the answering service, exclusion keys were used a lot so the answering

service would not 'see' your calls. It was the same principle, but an

'exclusion switch' would generally be mounted near the front door of

your premises. The CO sent your calls in on a pair; someway or another

it got looped back through that switch mounted near your front door,

and back to the CO for the jumper to the answering service. When you came

in you were expected to remember to flip that switch one way, to cut

off the extension going to the answering service. When you left for lunch

for for the day or the weekend or whatever you were expected to remember

to flip the switch the other way, thus putting the answering service

back on line for your calls. PAT]

Bill Sohl Budd Lake's profile photo

Bill Sohl Budd Lake

Jan 9, 1995, 4:15:51 AM

to

In response to several prior comments, Pat wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only is it illegal for a store to

> sell such units, it is often times against corporate policy to even

> discuss the possibility of modification.

Pat, the sale of such scanners is NOT illegal, see my proposed FAQ

on this subject below.

> but back then 'secret government radio stations' -- oh, the RS clerks

> knew them all. Then about ten years ago as 800 meg scanners were

> becoming more common, those mysterious mod sheets ("I dunno who left

> it here in the store, but we made some copies for customers ..")

> discussed how to change RS scanners to pick up cellular phones by

> clipping a diode here and there.

> But then the feds came to Fort Worth one day with a blunt message

> for all concerned: "Can the shit!" said the FCC. You betcha!

Maybe that was true, maybe not, regardless, all the MODS are readily

available today and are often written up in publications such as

"Monitoring Times" and other communications hobbyist magazines.

> Within a few days a memo was hanging on the back wall in the office

> of every Radio Shack store which said there would be no further

> discussion of 'mods' with customers under any circumstances. Not only

> that, if the customer mentioned making mods, the clerk was to *decline

> the sale* rather than possibly be later found to be part of a

> conspiracy or a scheme.

What kind of "conspiracy"? Not meant as a flame, but other than

modifying CBs for out-of-frequency operation or for illegally

increasing the CBs power, modifying most other equipment such as

scanners violates nothing.

The above response by Pat, comp.dcom,telecom moderator, contained a

few errors with regard to the sale of equipment (i.e. scanners) that

can or could be used to listen to cellular telephone calls. To

clarify things a bit, here's the current perspective on the laws that

affect the actual act of listening versus the equipment that might be

used to listen.

I have written this as a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) which

I offer to Pat (or anyone else) to use as they see fit.

FAQ: Listening to CELLULAR or CORDLESS Telephone Conversations

Version 0.1 (draft), last updated 1/8/94

Send any suggested text changes/corrections updates to Bill Sohl.

email: bill...@planet.net

Q1 - Is it illegal to listen to CELLULAR telephone converstaions?

YES - The 1986 Electronics Communication Privacy Act made it illegal for

anyone to listen to cellular telephone conversations. Doing so since

then has been and still is a federal violaion of the ECPA.

Q2 - Did the 1986 ECPA impact the legality of scanners and/or other radio

receivers that can be used to receive CELLULAR telephone conversations

(segments of the 800 MHz band)?

NO - The ECPA did NOT in any way make it illegal to own, manufacture,

import, sell or personally built yourself, the equipment that could be

used to listen to cellular telephone calls.

Q3 - Didn't manufacturers alter their scanner designs to exclude the

CELLULAR frequencies?

YES - Some manufacturers did modify their line of scanners to eliminate

the ability to receive or tune to cellular frequencies (e.g. the Tandy

line of Radio Shack scanners). Even in the case of those manufacturers

that changed their design to eliminate the CELLULAR frequencies, the

design change usually was a simple memory lock-out that was easily

"restored" by simply clipping a diode inside the scanner. Additionally,

some other manufacturers continued to offer radio receivers and scanners

that covered the entire spectrum of frequencies including celllar (800

MHz).

Q4 - Are manufacturers still making scanners that can receive CELLULAR?

NO, not in the USA - As mentioned above, the original ECPA legislation

in no way made such equipment illegal The current REGULATIONS covering

radio scanning receivers (i.e. the receiving equipment) came about by

order of Congress in 1993 (at the prompting of the CELLULAR industry)

to force the Federal Communications Commission to promulgate design

requirements to eliminate "Scanner" manufacturers from making or

importing scanners which could receive CELLULAR frequencies. The FCC

did promulgate such rules and as of April 26, 1994 it became illegal

to manufacture or import any scanner which could receive CELLULAR

frequencies OR which could be "easily modified" to receive cellular

frequencies.

Q5 - How come scanners are still being advertised for sale as being

capable of receiving CELLULAR?

It is important to note that the FCC design rules impact only NEW

equipment built or imported after April 26, 1994. Thus, any store

which has any existing stocks of "pre-4/26/94" CELLULAR capable

scanners can continue to sell them until they have no more stock.

Q6 - What is the legality of owning a scanner that can receive CELLULAR?

It is perfectly legal. None of the already existing scanners in the

USA (probably a million or more) which can receive CELLULAR or be

easily modified to receive CELLULAR are illegal to own or sell. Thus,

it is perfectly legal to offer for sale any scanners which may be

cellular capable and where built before the 4/26/94 FCC deadline.

Q7 - Is it illegal to modify a scanner so it can receive CELLULAR?

NO - There is no law which makes it illegal to modify an existing

radio (or scanner) to receive CELLULAR...or, for that matter if one

has the technical ability to do so, from building their own CELLULAR

receiver from scratch. The FCC regulations against manufacture and

importation are design requirements placed on MANUFACTURERS and not on

individuals who might construct their own radio receiving equipment,

even if it happens to be capable of receiving CELLULAR.

Q7 - What are converters which make it possible to receive CELLULAR

frequencies on scanners that can't receive CELLULAR?

Converters (AKA block converters) receive a range of frequencies and

convert them to another range of frequencies. A CELLULAR converter

typically will receive the entire 800-900MHz band and convert it to a

range of 400-500MHz which can easily be received by almost any scanner

ever built.

Q8 - Are converters for CELLULAR illegal to manufacture or import?

YES - The same FCC April 26, 1994 deadline for CELLULAR capable

scanners also affected CELLULAR Converter manufacture and importation.

BUT ... the design and construction of a block converter involves, in

general electronic terms, a relatively trivial circuit. Today there

are several converter "kits" on the market which provide to the

purchaser the circuit design, a how to set of instructions and all the

electronic components to build such a converter themselves with just a

small soldering iron.

Q9 - What about listening to CORDLESS telephone conversations?

A late 1994 congressional action amended the ECPA's listening

prohibition to now include CORDLESS phones. Prior to that change, it

was completely legal (except in a handful of states with state laws

prohibiting CORDLESS listening) to listen to CORDLESS telephone

conversations. With the amended ECPA, it is now illegal on a federal

basis (and thus everywhere in the USA) to listen to CORDLESS telephone

conversations as well as CELLULAR conversations.

Q10 - What about scanners that can receive CORDLESS frequencies.

There are no design regulations which prohibit the manufacture or

importation of scanners that can receive the CORDLESS frequenices.

Unlike CELLULAR frequencies which are in the Ultra High Frequency

(UHF) range which was not included in many inexpensive scanners, the

CORDLESS frequencies (46-49 MHz) are in the Very High Frequency (VHF)

range and can be received by literally EVERY scanner ever made

(probably several million).

Q11 - Will it ever be illegal to own receivers (scanners) that can

recieve CELLULAR and/or CORDLESS frequencies?

Speculative answer follows: In as much as there are millions of such

recievers/scanners already legally owned, it is quite unlikely that

any federal or state law would be passed that would make such

equipment illegal to own and, therefor, force peole to turn in to some

government entity. This is further underscored by the fact that the

CORDLESS and CELLULAR frequencies are only a small segment of the

frequencies that are receivable by any scanner and thus all such

scanners have numerous legal listening capabiliies (police, fire,

rescue, amateur radio, TV, aircraft, etc.) despite their ability to be

used illegally to listen to either CORDLESS or CELLULAR frequencies.

Q12 - How effective are these laws in stopping people from listening

(eavesdropping) on CELLULAR or CORDLESS conversations?

Probably not very effective at all. Since millions of receivers/scanners

exist already, such listening, although illegal, probably goes on all

the time. Illegal listening is impossible to detect and thus

impossible to stop. The only possible way to learn of someone

eavesdropping on CORDLESS or CELLULAR is if the individual admits

doing so on their own and that isn't very unlikely.

Q13 - Should I be concerned that my CORDLESS or CELLULAR conversation is

being listened to?

The probability that any individual call is being listened to is very

low, however, it makes good sense to treat any CORDLESS or CELLULAR

conversation as if it was being listened to .. .don't discuss highly

confidential information (especially credit card numbers) on such

calls.

Q14 - Will CELLULAR or CORDLESS conversations ever be safe from

eavesdropping?

If and only if such calls are encrypted will any measure of increased

security be available to users. The technology is available, but the

deployment of encryption will take time and require current users to

change their equipment (their current non-encrypted CORDLESS and

CELLULAR telephones).

-----end of FAQ-----

Bill Sohl K2UNK (Budd lake, New Jersey) (bill...@planet.net)

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are wrong on a couple things, however

that is because of confusion over contradictory laws. Aside from what

the Electronic Commuications Privacy Act says, the Federal Communications

Commission addresses the question of radios which have been modified.

Illegal modification (i.e. modification by an unlicensed person) voids

your FCC authority to operate the radio. Furthermore, no *licensed*

person is going to make illegal modifications to a radio and risk having

such handiwork be traced back to his bench, at the possible risk of his

loss of his license. Quoting from memory from a conversation over a year

ago with Bill Bartels, District Sales Manager for Radio Shack for the

northern district of Illinois (this does not include Chicago, considered

a district of its own), after seeing the memorandum sent to RS store

managers on this topic, I noted to Mr. Bartels that 'it looks to me like

the feds put some heat on RS corporate in Fort Worth ...' and he responded

that he and several of the DSMs and RSMs (District and Regional Sales

Managers) had met in Fort Worth when 'the topic came up', and 'I would

have to say you are correct, but I cannot discuss it further ...'.

There was no EPCA discussion in this, other than as it coincidentally

occurred. It was simply a case of the FCC telling Radio Shack to 'get

your clerks to quit screwing around with all this illegal stuff', and

Tandy's attornies were sufficiently impressed with what they had been

instructed by the FCC that down through channels it went. The store here

in Skokie has it hanging in the office in back; a newspaper account of

some company which got banged hard by the FCC; a memo from Tandy to the

RSM/DSM people (that's the *only* people corporate speaks with; they

never deal direct with the store managers, and certainly never the

clerks, that is the job of the DSM's), and the manager's note to his

employees: "*NEVER* discuss illegal mods with any customer for any

reason."

The 'conspiracy connection': the law provides that if you knowingly

transfer ownership of some item to some other person, knowing (or if

you should have known) that the person intends it to be used illegally

then whatever beef the government has with him later on, if it can

be demonstrated that you knew his intentions then you can be charged

as a co-conspirator. It does not have to be radios. For example, you

go to a store and buy a device to automatically tape record what is

said over the phone. You say to the clerk, "I am buying this so I

can spy on my neighbor's (wife's, whoever) phone calls ..." If the

clerk sells it to you knowing your intended use, he aided and abetted

you in the commission of your crime. Haven't you ever noticed how when

someone famous gets shot or killed, along the way there is always an

attempt to drag the gun dealer who sold the weapon to the deranged

person into the process? Apparently Radio Shack has gotten sued here

and there by the victims of someone spying on them over the radio or

telephone, etc. No one is saying it is against the law to *discuss*

illegal things; merely that you cannot *do* illegal things. Radio

Shack says you won't even *discuss* illegal things if you want to

remain on their payroll. As it was told to me, a few years ago when

FCC agents were raiding the homes/workshops of guys who specialized

in building/selling pirate, out of band CB radios, and guys who were

willfully causing interference on cellular phone frequencies, time

and again they'd find RS equipment being used, and crude typewritten

notes 'published' by RS clerks showing how to do whatever was being

done. The FCC said that could be taken as conspiracy and the Tandy

attornies agreed with the assessment.

How seriously does RS take this? They even send 'shoppers' out from

corporate unknown to local store personnel who go to the local RS

store to check the store out secretly for general purposes. In the

process, they wave a big wad of money around implying they want to buy every

peice of radio equipment in the store's inventory, cash of course, 'but I

would rather not give my name for your computer, and I will need some

advice on how to fix these units to work the way I want them to ...'

In other words, they egg the hungry, paid by commission clerk on, trying

to get him to spill his guts right there in the store. They'll ask

the same questions over and over, a half-dozen different ways, and

let the clerk keep politely dodging the issue. It makes no difference

what magazines publish articles on these things any more than it

matters that 'true detective' magazines publish articles on bank

robberies and how they were done. It's just that you cannot drive the

getaway car for the bank robber any more than you can be the person

who actually robbed the bank. PAT]

Bennett Z. Kobb's profile photo

Bennett Z. Kobb

Jan 9, 1995, 1:23:35 PM

to

The amendment to include cordless came in with the Digital Telephony

Bill, I believe. EFF did not object to the amendment but questioned

its propriety without public dialogue on the subject.

It may not be settled that random scanning, even of cellular spectrum,

violates the ECPA due to the high standard of culpability placed in

the law in the late stages. An excellent reference and opinion paper

on this is "Don't Touch That Dial: Radio Listening Under the

Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986," by Fred Jay Meyer, in

the New York University Law Review, V63 N2, May 1988.

I'm reminded of Rep. Carlos Moorhead's assurances that "ECPA is not

intended to penalize someone who just happens upon the frequency."

Bennett Kobb bk...@newsignals.com

Editor and publisher Spectrum Guide

Christopher Zguris's profile photo

Christopher Zguris

Jan 10, 1995, 12:35:00 AM

to

g...@gwssun.cb.att.com (Gary Sanders) writes:

> You have been listening to to many cell phone sales guys. First, many

> scanners don't need to be modified (although new ones may) to listen to

> cell phones. They come out of the box with cellular. As for snippets I

> would beg to differ, I know some one who is an active cell listner

> (-:)) and depending on your local cell configuration you will hear

> most of all phone calls that are placed. "my friend" listened to

> someone trying to explain how secure a cell phone is becuase its

> allways changing freq. Was interesting considering the entire call

> was 15 minutes long and never changed cells/freq.

What recent scanners come with cellular enabled? _Recent_ equipment,

that is. Regarding snippets, I'm sure it _does_ depend on the layout

of the cells, but it _also_ depends on how fast the cellular phone is

moving. If it is moving fast -- as opposed to stationary -- it will

break up and move on to another cell/freq. If "your friend" is located

in a major suburban area, he probably won't pick up many complete

calls that last more than a minute or two. You've brought up _one_

instance of hearing an entire cell phone call. If that 15 minute call

is the best "your friend" has heard -- especially when you consider

some people talk on the phone for 30 or more minutes (hours on a

"regular" phone) -- I'd say that kinda proves my point!

Christopher Zguris czg...@mcimail.com

(just another happy MCI customer)

John Higdon's profile photo

John Higdon

Jan 10, 1995, 2:47:02 AM

to

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are wrong on a couple things, however

> that is because of confusion over contradictory laws. Aside from what

> the Electronic Commuications Privacy Act says, the Federal Communications

> Commission addresses the question of radios which have been modified.

> Illegal modification (i.e. modification by an unlicensed person) voids

> your FCC authority to operate the radio. Furthermore, no *licensed*

> person is going to make illegal modifications to a radio and risk having

> such handiwork be traced back to his bench, at the possible risk of his

> loss of his license.

But this only applies to radios manufactured and offered for sale to

the public and does NOT cover modifications made by an individual for

his own use, or use by another. In fact, there is no prohibition of

any kind with regard to the construction of a radio from scratch by an

individual. Patrick, I know you are old enough to have possibly built

the radios described in the various scouting handbooks. There was no

requirement that one build the radio exactly as described, nor was

there any requirement to have the completed device "certified" in any

way. There has been no change in the basic rules in this regard since

then that I am aware of.

Transmitters are another story. FCC rules require that all transmitters

be maintained and adjusted by a properly licensed technician. As the

holder of such licenses since the 1960's, I am completely unaware of

any grades of license requirement to service any receive-only equipment.

Furthermore, I am unaware of any "FCC authority" required to operate

any receive-only equipment. As scanners are incapable of transmission

(the local oscillator incidental radiation notwithstanding), their

possession, modification, or use are of absolutely no concern to the

FCC.

Using radio receivers in the commission of crimes is, of course, another

matter. But after consulting the volumes of rules that I have handy, I can

find no provision, nor specification of license grade, involved with

maintenance, repair, modification, or adjustment of a radio receiver.

What the Feds tell Radio Shack that it may or may not do is Radio

Shack's problem and does not extend to you and me. I have probably a

half-dozen scanners and service radios capable of receiving the

cellular band. Two of them have that capability because I gave it to

them. I don't think my FCC license is in any jeapardy. If I wanted to

buy another, I would go to Japan and pick one up, or have a friend

simply bring one with him on his return. Customs does not seize them --

they only want to know what they cost!

Note that I am NOT claiming that I listen to cellular transmissions

(that would be illegal). My only claim is that I legally possess

radios capable of such activity and will probably continue to do so in

perpetuity.

John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX:

jo...@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407

Tony Pelliccio's profile photo

Tony Pelliccio

Jan 10, 1995, 3:49:50 AM

to

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know where you shop, but all the

> Radio Shack units make a point of cutting out the cellular frequencies.

> So do quite a few others, and they have for a few years now. PAT]

Actually the AOR-2500 comes through with the cell band intact. Or at

least it did until the FCC attempted to clamp down on it. The nice

thing is the AOR-2500 is considered a communications receiver and not

a scanner and last I heard the whole thing was still tied up in

hearings.

Of course if you really want to follow a cell call just get a DDI and

hook it up to your PC. The interesting thing is that the company that

sells the DDI will only release software with ESN capability to law

enforcement people. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR, VE ARRL/W5YI Tel. (401) 863-1880

Box 1908, Providence, RI 02912 Fax. (401) 863-2269

PB Emerton's profile photo

PB Emerton

Jan 11, 1995, 12:55:43 PM

to

Tony Pelliccio (Tony_Pe...@brown.edu) wrote:

> Actually the AOR-2500 comes through with the cell band intact. Or at

> least it did until the FCC attempted to clamp down on it. The nice

> thing is the AOR-2500 is considered a communications receiver and not

> a scanner and last I heard the whole thing was still tied up in

> hearings.

> Of course if you really want to follow a cell call just get a DDI and

> hook it up to your PC. The interesting thing is that the company that

> sells the DDI will only release software with ESN capability to law

> enforcement people. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

What company is it?

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please see the referenced remarks of Tony

Pelliccio above: 'FCC tried to clamp down ... still tied up in court'.

A word to the wise: you don't want to mess with those people *too much*.

A little maybe, but not too much.

Like some people here who have disagreed with me over the past couple

days on this, I seriously doubt the FCC is going to stage any massive

actions to get cellular phone equipped scanners out of circulation, etc.

But what I can tell you is they can be a nasty bunch of buggers when

they want to be. In the past they have gone into pirate radio stations

and started pulling wires and fuses out of the control board while the

station was on the air ... kicked the door down and walked in. They

have spent hours driving around in a van through some neighborhood to

triangulate or get a fix on some signal when they wanted the guy. Like

all government agencies, they have loads of money and an infinite amount

of time and resources to spend when they decide they will get their way. As

Tony points out, they are still fighting in court over the AOR-2500.

When the FCC gets a vendetta of some kind started, for whatever reason,

they will do a number on all concerned. Bureaucrats will be bureaucrats,

and there is nothing worse than a bureaucrat scorned. :)

Selective enforcement of their own code (the Communications Act) at times?

Sure ... all government agencies selectively enforce the law ... so sue

them. But if a time comes for whatever reason that you are a big target

the FCC would like to get under control and instead of just raiding your

premises with a United States Marshall in tow costing you all kinds of

grief and money -- the way another government agency did to Steve Jackson;

remember him? -- if instead they contact your attorney and tell him to get

you on the straight and narrow 'so we do not have to take this further' then

you know what you do? First you Praise Jesus ... then you think over very

carefully how far you want to push it. PAT]

Bob Keller's profile photo

Bob Keller

Jan 11, 1995, 5:50:46 PM

to

Hi Pat,

> Most readers have been following this thread in the Digest in recent

> days. Bill Sohl has written a final response on the topic, in which

> he summarizes FCC regulations and responds to comments made by myself

> in recent issues.

I have _not_ been following the thread closely due to press of other

business, but I could not resist agreeing with you and disagreeing

with Mr. Sohl on one point ...

> You (PAT) said:

>> Aside from what the Electronic Communications Privacy Act says, the

>> Federal Communications Commission addresses the question of radios

>> which have been modified. Illegal modification (i.e. modification

>> by an unlicensed person) voids your FCC authority to operate the

>> radio.

> Sorry, that is absolutely false. The FCC part 15 rules are the

> specifc requirements for which RF devices must be tested against by

> the FCC to CERTIFY them for initial sale to the public. That is all

> that the rules govern ... initial certification. The rules do not grant

> any "authority to operate" the device, nor do the forbid operation of

> any certified device that has been modified after the initial sale nor

> do they forbid operation of any uncertified device that may have been

> built from scratch. Bottom line...Part 15 rules impose absolutely NO

> duty on the consumer.

I don't agree. Rule 15.1(b) provides:

"The operation of an intentional or unintentional radiator

that is not in accordance with the regulations in this part

must be licensed pursuant to the provisions of Section 301

of the Communications Act, as amended, unless otherwise

exempted from the licensing requirements elsewhere in this

chapter."

Note that this rule addresses _operation_ of the device. In most, if

not all, radio services, the modified device would not be properly

type accepted in the applicable service which would, in turn, preclude

licensing of its use pursuant to Section 301 except in special cases

(e.g., an experimental or developmental authorization, or possibly

certain amateur radio uses within ham bands and subject to ham rules).

> Anyone can buy any commercial receiver (or scanner, or TV, or

> computer, etc.) and modify it in any way they want and not be in

> violation (as you claim) of any law. Additionally, hobbyists have

> been building their own receivers and/or modifying commercial (as well

> as military surplus) receivers for years. Doing so is not a crime,

> nor does it render the use of any such home built or modified RECEIVER

> illegal. Furthermore, there is NO license required to build, modify,

> repair or otherwise tinker with any radio receiving equipment used by

> the general population.

I am not sure that this statement can be squared with Section 15.21 of

the FCC Rules which provides:

"The users manual or instruction manual for an intentional

or unintentional radiator shall caution the user that

changes or modifications not expressly approved by the

party responsible for compliance could void the user's

authority to operate the equipment."

While I would not necessarily go so far as to label scanner and other

receiver adjustments and/or modifications as necessarily or even

likely "criminal," it is nonetheless important to keep in mind two

important factors:

(1) A device or a circuit within a device that is

"receive-only" may still be (and in the case of

radio receivers usually is) either an intentional

or unintentional radiator within the meaning of

Part 15 of the Rules; and

(2) Without even getting into the debate over the special

statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to

cellular-capable scanners, there is a _big_

difference between opening up a device to repair, allign,

or adjust it and modifying the manufacturer's design

features of the device.

Bob Keller (KY3R) Robert J. Keller, P.C. Tel: 301.229.5208

r...@telcomlaw.com Telecommunications Law Fax: 301.229.6875

<ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/rjk/> <finger r...@telcomlaw.com>

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you, Bob. Section 15.21 is all

I was trying to get across to readers here. No, one does not have to

have a 'license', ie. written document or whatever to operate a

receiving only radio; authority is automatically given when you buy

it from a licensed source. But as soon as you tamper with the innards

and make changes in how or what the radio receives, and how it processes

what it receives *and you are an unlicensed person* -- that is, you lack a

tech ticket -- then according the FCC and 15.21 you lose your authority

(albiet granted originally by default) to 'operate' the radio, which may

amount to nothing more than twisting the off/on switch and the tuning dial.

May I suggest to readers the next time you decide to purchase some sort of

radio, or television perhaps, *look at the user manual*. Let's leave Radio

Shack out of this since some people around here seem to think I am in

cahoots with Tandy or somehow playing tricks using their name. Buy your

radio from whoever. Read the manual. Note the legal verbiage in there

somewhere about *losing your 'authority' to operate the darn thing if you

make unlicensed repairs or modifications*. Why do you think General

Electric, Best Buy, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, etc and oh yeah! Radio Shack put

that admonition in there? The FCC *requires* them to do so.

Radio Shack was putting in the FCC admonition, then their clerks were

making mock of it. In essence, the FCC said, "We'll show who is boss ...'

and they did. PAT]