[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Locating cordless phone interference, was Re: Cardboard Antenna Question Thanks



> The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 had a specific 
> exclusion
> for the radio portion of cordless phone communications, public land 
> mobile
> radio (mobile phone), and pager service communications.  This exclusion
> didn't make it legal to listen to these services, it just made it less
> serious than listening to cell calls. The ECPA was changed by congress 
> when
> they passed the Cyber Electronic Security Act in 2002. One part of the
> change was to eliminate that exclusion (section 108, sub section 2511,
> paragraph (B)). The best part is it was changed from a minor offense 
> for
> which one can be fined a maximum of $500 to a federal felony for which 
> one
> can be imprisoned for up to 5 years.

Question for clarification:  The ECPA *did* make it illegal to monitor 
cordless phone conversations but not as serious an offense as 
monitoring cell conversations, and the CESA made it a more serious 
offense?

I won't get into the discussion of what possessed these people to think 
that this could possibly be a good idea, but I want to get my facts 
straight, considering that some of the 900 MHz phones operate in the 
900 MHz ham band or at least near enough to it that some radios can 
pick them up -- remembering finding a few on a scanner once or twice.  
If it's actually as illegal to listen to cordless phones as to 
cellphones now, this has implications I don't like at all .. it's a 
very slippery slope they're walking on.

But anyway, enough of my personal opinions .. maybe I better find an 
attorney who can give me more info.

> I've had an email conversation with Riley Hollingsworth about this and 
> they
> do take this law seriously.

I'm sure they do -- they have to, it's federal law, which the FCC has a 
mandate to enforce.  Still doesn't make it a good idea, which way too 
few people these days seem to want to question.  But that's another 
discussion -- they have to enforce the laws Congress passes, whether 
they agree with them or not.

> In my case I had a severe case of interference from a cordless phone 
> running
> WBFM at 2401.375 mhz. I would have liked to simply listen to the
> conversation
> until I got some clue as to who the phone user was and where they 
> lived.
> Since
> this is illegal, I bought another converter and proceeded to build a 
> DFing
> rig.
> Then the phone changed frequencies and I haven't heard it since. I'm 
> sure it
> or
> another one will be back so I'm still building the DFing rig.

Probably good to at least *have* the DFing rig, even if you find out 
where they are by some other means.  At the very least it gives you 
something to show when questions arise as to how you found out where 
the signals were coming from.  Field notes from your DF operations 
(locations, bearings, triangulations, etc.) would probably be good 
evidence of your adherence to the law too ..

"Go ahead and do it, you can apologize later." -- RADM Grace Hopper, 
1906-1992
"The sunset is an illusion, but the beauty is real." -- Richard Bach

----
Sent via amsat-bb@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home