140 lines
6.2 KiB
Plaintext
140 lines
6.2 KiB
Plaintext
Message #3354 - Shortwave Listeners
|
|
Date : 02-Oct-91 19:17
|
|
From : Kirk Baxter
|
|
To : All
|
|
Subject : SUGGESTED LETTER (USENET)
|
|
From: PRO-2006 <rats@CBNEWSC.CB.ATT.COM>
|
|
Subject: Fight HR1674, Section 8 in the Senate!
|
|
While the chances of removing the offending Section 8 of HR 1674
|
|
are slim indeed, for sure it will stay in IF no opposition is
|
|
generated.
|
|
|
|
Every Letter and Phone Call made reflects the opinions of hundreds
|
|
of Citizens. This means that in order to combat the massive financial
|
|
resources of the Cellular Telephone Industry, it is important that
|
|
every Citizen concerned with the well-being of their liberties contact
|
|
their Senators.
|
|
|
|
This is your last chance; there is no way that President Bush will
|
|
fail to sign the FCC authorization. Apparently few people managed
|
|
to lift their fingers to oppose the bill in the House.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continue [Y/n/=]?
|
|
As Bob Grove of Monitoring Times points out, other forces are fully
|
|
intent upon restricting the frequency coverage of receiver equipment,
|
|
the police being one. Allowing this Section 8 to remain will establish
|
|
a precedent of the legality of restricting frequency coverage. Better
|
|
to fight the first ban now than the second ban tommorow!
|
|
|
|
What to do:
|
|
|
|
[1] Call your two Senators at (202) 224-3121. Tell them that you
|
|
want them to remove Section 8 of HR1674.
|
|
|
|
[2] Make copies of this slightly modified letter that appeared here
|
|
and send it to both your Senators at:
|
|
|
|
The Honorable Senator _______
|
|
U.S. Senate
|
|
Washington, DC 20510
|
|
|
|
You can be part of what it will take to make A DIFFERENCE.
|
|
|
|
More people read this news group than read Monitoring Times!
|
|
|
|
===========================================================================
|
|
|
|
Continue [Y/n/=]?
|
|
|
|
September 30, 1991
|
|
My Honorable Senator:
|
|
|
|
This is to express my opposition to The Federal Communications
|
|
Commission authorization bill, now passed by the House as HR 1674.
|
|
Included in this bill in Section 8 is a provision which outlaws all
|
|
autotuned radio receiver equipment which may be capable of receiving
|
|
cellular telephone communications.
|
|
|
|
This section:
|
|
-is a DANGEROUS ENCROACHMENT ON A UNIQUE AMERICAN FREEDOM
|
|
-takes away our freedoms for the PROFITS OF A POWERFUL OLIGOPOLY
|
|
-is UNNECESSARY
|
|
-will FAIL TO ACHIEVE ITS PURPOSE
|
|
|
|
The purpose of this provision is to allow the Cellular Telephone industry
|
|
to continue to mislead its customers into believing that their conversations
|
|
are private, and as such represents an ATTACK ON PERSONAL FREEDOMS OF ALL
|
|
FOR
|
|
THE PROFITS OF A FEW! Never before has the US government prohibited the
|
|
manufacture or possession of any radio receiver. Such attempts to prevent
|
|
|
|
Continue [Y/n/=]?
|
|
the reception of radio waves is something citizens normally associated
|
|
with despotic regimes. Whether by deliberate interference, such
|
|
as the decades long jamming of Radio Free Europe, or, by placing
|
|
restrictions on the possession of receivers, as done in the Second
|
|
World War, the effect is the same.
|
|
|
|
Radios which are capable of such reception are common today, and there are
|
|
a number of VALID PURPOSES for such radios:
|
|
-to determine if other, authorized radio equipment is generating
|
|
interference on or near cellular telephone frequencies.
|
|
-to receive other non-cellular services that are very near in frequency
|
|
to cellular services.
|
|
-to determine when cellular services are causing interference to other
|
|
authorized services.
|
|
-as laboratory equipment.
|
|
|
|
This ATTACK on freedoms IS UNNECESSARY for the following reasons:
|
|
-New cellular telephone systems will use a digital technology which
|
|
is inherently hard to intercept. As an engineer, I can say with
|
|
confidence that the technology to make interception essentially
|
|
impossible (encryption technology) would add almost nothing to the
|
|
cost of an already digital system. The U.S. should REQUIRE that
|
|
this new technology use encryption technology to guarantee privacy!
|
|
|
|
Continue [Y/n/=]?
|
|
-It is ALREADY illegal to monitor cellular calls. The Electronic
|
|
Communications Privacy Act of 1986 prohibits such monitoring.
|
|
-It is currently possible to purchase voice scramblers for cellular
|
|
telephones.
|
|
-Targetted monitoring of cellular phones, where the interceptor attempts
|
|
to track the conversation of specific individuals, is virtually
|
|
impossible with current equipment, because cellular frequencies
|
|
are assigned with each call, on an essentially random basis, and
|
|
are changed during the call as the auto moves between zones.
|
|
|
|
The provision WILL FAIL to achieve its purpose for the following reasons:
|
|
-Already, millions of radio receivers exist that can receive
|
|
cellular telephone communications. These receivers will not disappear
|
|
on the creation of such a law, but their value will increase!
|
|
-It is technically very easy to create what is called a "converter" to
|
|
convert any scanner or other VHF receiver, or even a car radio, so that
|
|
it can monitor cellular telephones. Thus, those who wish to illicitly
|
|
monitor cellular calls, and don't already have such receivers, will
|
|
still be able to construct or purchase, on the black market, equipment
|
|
to monitor cellular calls. When I was in high school, I manufactured
|
|
a similar device in order to monitor the local fire department. It
|
|
is relatively easy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continue [Y/n/=]?
|
|
The provision will be UNPOPULAR because:
|
|
-Millions of scanner owners will resent this loss of freedom.
|
|
-Professional two way radio equipment servicers will face difficulties
|
|
in detecting and preventing interference.
|
|
-Scanner manufacturers will face increased costs. Professional laboratory
|
|
equipment manufacturers will face severe technological obstacles, which
|
|
is a hinderance to American productivity.
|
|
-Cellular telephone users will have conversations no more private than
|
|
today.
|
|
|
|
I urge you to examine this issue, verify these facts, and then vote against
|
|
this unnecessary new restriction on the rights of Americans.
|
|
|
|
Thank you,
|
|
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
|
|
* Origin: ANARC BBS-Assoc.of N.American Radio Clubs (913)345-1978 (1:280/3)
|
|
|