This has been circulating among scanner enthusiasts for about three weeks. He has the name of the bill slightly wrong. In any event it's HR 3482. It passed the House but hasn't been taken up in the Senate. The committee report justifies the amendment as follows: Sec. 109. Protecting Privacy. Section 109(a) would amend 18 U.S.C. 2511(4)(b) to raise the penalties for a person who illegally intercepts cell-phone conversations. Under current law, 2511(4)(b) provides lesser penalties for certain wiretap violations. For example, while most illegal wiretapping constitutes a 5-year felony, the statute punishes first time offenders who intercept a cellular phone call with a mere fine. The requirement that violations be committed intentionally\10\ ensures that mere inadvertent overhearing of a brief portion of a communication is not criminalized. The Committee believes that the special penalty scheme for cell phone violations should be eliminated and that all wire interceptions should be treated equally. Therefore, this section makes the statutory maximum penalty for all such offenses the same regardless of the technology used. \10\See 18 U.S.C. 2511(1)(a)-(d). It's been referred to the Senate. Anyone having concerns about the deletion of 18 USC 2511(4)(b) should ask their Senators to ensure that if the Senate takes up the measure, the Senate version not delete this subsection. I'm not in favor of or defending the bill, but it looks to me to be an uphill battle to argue that increasing the penalties for something that's already illegal imposes a new restriction. In any event it doesn't affect hams operating as hams. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Art Goddard [mailto:w6xd@attbi.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 4:46 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: ARRL ODV Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7632] Blindsided? WFO? 73, Art ---------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 14:19:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Rob <rstaab@panix.com> Reply-To: geeks@sunhelp.org To: geeks@sunhelp.org Subject: [geeks] New Cyber/Electronic Security Laws... For those of you who are HAMs and amateur radio enthusists, this may interest you. - Rob Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but something of enormous importance to radio hobbyists has just happened in Washington, and so far I haven't seen any mention or discussion of it on any scanner or ham lists I follow. I hope this message will alert others to what has just happened and get people thinking about the consequences... The House just passed the Cyber Electronic Security Act last night (7/15/02) by an overwhelming margin of 385-3. Buried in an otherwise draconian bill that raises penalties for computer hacking that causes death or serious injury to life in prison and allows government monitoring of communications and email without warrants in even more circumstances is the following seeming obscure language: SEC. 108. PROTECTING PRIVACY. (a) Section 2511- Section 2511(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking paragraph (b); and (2) by redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (b). For those of you who don't realize what this means .... Section 2511 subsection 4 of title 18 (the ECPA) currently reads as foilows....the CESA will strike part(b) of this language. Penalties.. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. [The following section will be eliminated by the new law...] (b) If the offense is a first offense under paragraph (a) of this subsection and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, and the wire or electronic communication with respect to which the offense underparagraph (a) is a radio communication that is not scrambled, encrypted, or transmitted using modulation techniques the essential parameters of which have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication, then - (i) if the communication is not the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is trans- mitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication or a paging service communication, and the conduct is not that described in subsection (5), the offender shall be fined under this title or impris- oned not more than one year, or both; and (ii) if the communication is the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication or a paging service communication, the offender shall be fined under this title. What this does is change the penalty for the first offense of inter- cepting an unscrambled and unencrypted radio communication that is not supposed to be listened to (eg AMPS cellular calls, commercial pagers, cordless phones, common carrier commun- ications) for hobby purposes (eg not a tortuous or illegal purpose or for direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain) from a misdemeanor (one year or less prison time) to a federal FELONY (5 years prison time). And further this changes the status of the specific offense of listening to a cell call, cordless call, a pager, or a public land mobile radio service communication (eg a telephone intercon- nect) from a minor offense for which one can be fined a maxi- mum of $500 to a federal FELONY for which one can be impris- oned for up to 5 years. In effect this removes a safe harbor created during the negotiations over the ECPA back in 1985-86 which ensured that first offenses for hobby radio listening were only treated as minor crimes - after this law is passed simply intentionally tuning a common scanner to the (non-blocked) cordless phone frequencies could be prosec- uted as a felony for which one could serve 5 years in jail. And in case any of my readers have forgotten, a federal felony conviction (even without any jail time) deprives one of the right to vote, to own firearms, to be employed in a number of high level jobs and professions, to hold certain professional licenses and permits, and important for certain readers of these listsabsolutely eliminates for life the possibility of holding any kind of security clearance whatever (a recent change in the rules) - something required for many if not most interesting government and govern- ment related jobs. So merely being stopped by a cop with the cordless phone freq- uencies in your scanner could conceivably result in life long loss of important rights and privileges. For some of you out there this may seem small potatoes and irrelevant since it merely changes the penalties for an already illegal act (which you are not supposed to be engaged in) and doesn't make anything new illegal. But this is a rather naive view. The federal government was certainly not going to prosecute a hobbyist for radio communications interception under the old version of the ECPA if the worst penalty that could be levied was a $500 fine - there simply is not the budget or the staff to prosec- ute people for what would be a very minor offense (equivalent of a speeding ticket). And even prosecuting hobbyists for more serious interception (eg not cellular, cordless or pagers) was still a misdemeanor offense prosecution with jail time unlikely. So in practice the only prosecutions were of people who clearly had a commercial purpose or otherwise engaged in egregious and public (eg the Newt call) conduct - noever got prosecuted. And this was doubtless the intent of Congress back in 1985-86 - it would be illegal to monitor certain radio traffic but only a minor offense if you did so for hobby type personal curiosity or just to hack with the equipment or technology - and a serious felony if one engaged in such conduct for the purpose of committing a crime or gaining financial or commercial advantage (eg true spying or electronic eavesdropping). But after this bill is signed into law (and clearly it will be), it will be quite possible for a federal prosecution of a hobbyist for illegal radio listening to be justified as a serious felony offense worth the time and effort and money to try and put in jail even if the offense is not for a commercial purpose or part of an illegal scheme. Thus "radio hacker" prosecutions have now become possible, and even perhaps probable. And federal prosecutors and law enforcement agents get career advancement and attention from senior management in their agencies in direct proportion to the seriousness of the offense they are investigating and prosecuting - nobody ever advances to senior agent for going after jaywalkers, thus by raising the level of less than legal hobby radio monitoring offenses from a jaywalking class offense to a serious felony for which there can be real jail time it becomes much more interesting from a career perspective to prosecute radio. And needless to say, such prosecutions would be shooting fish in a barrel type things given that many individuals are quite open on Internet newsgroups and mailing lists about their activities. And of course this MAJOR change in the ECPA also has the effect of making the rather ambiguous and unclear meaning of "readily accessible to the general public" much more sign- ificant, since intercepting something that isn't readily accessible to the general public is now clearly a serious crime even if done for hobby purposes as a first offense. Thus one has to be much more careful about making sure that the signal is a legal one... And further than all of this, and perhaps even MUCH more significant to radioon Internet scanner lists .... The careful, thoughtful reader will note that section 4 has been revised a bit lately, and that this new section 4 (see above) now makes it a federal felony with 5 years in jail penalties to violate section 1 INCLUDING the following provisions of section 1: 18 USC 2511: (1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who - (c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic commun- ication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or elect- ronic communication in violation of this subsection; (d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5). This seems to have changed the status of revealing as part of a hobby list any hint of the contents of a radio communications that might or might not have been legally intercepted from a potentially minor misdemeanor offense or less to a serious felony. Thus if a court finds that any communication reported on an Internet list was not legally intercepted, felony penalties apply for publishing the information even if the interception was for hobby purposes (which of course most scanner list intercepts are). Most significant for many of us, the section 18 USC 2510 exceptions to the prohibitions on intercepting radio commun- ications in 18 USC 2511 are pretty silent about military commun- ications - not prohibited, or specifically allowed except as "govern- mental communications". So it is possible that military comms might be found to be illegal to intercept and thus passing around information about them a potential felony, even though of course the military has complete access to the world's best COMSEC technology and uses for anything sensitive. But in a paranoid age (post 9/11) anything goes... and if the government wants to go after scanner lists (like Milcom) it might now be able to do so with prosecutions with real teeth and jail time. Thus the legal climate has fundamentally changed, and one can assume that since the Bush administration has been pushing for the passage of this bill that they perhaps intend to start prosecut- ing atleast some category of radiounder the new provisions - no doubt as an example meant to scare the rest of us into handing our radios in at the nearest police station... So yet another blow to the radio hobbies.... and a big one indeed...