From: Doug Jones (random@qnet.com)
Date: Sat Jan 08 2000 - 15:43:09 MST
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> Doug Jones <random@qnet.com> wrote on Saturday, January 08, 2000 2:36 pm,
>
> > Most are innocuous, like the FM transmitters and the generic video
> cameras;
> > the disguised cameras are most likely to be used for home security (one
> > testimonial mentions a smoke alarm video set up to monitor the front porch
> > for grandma, another was used to find a person putting threatening notes
> > into a schoolgirl's locker); and the only items really close to bending the
> > law are the downconverters and 800 MHz receivers which could be used to
> > listen in on cell phone calls.
>
> They were charged with wiretapping. I don't think the cameras were at
> issue. The equipment to listen in on cell phone calls is at issue.
Not so- *all* the equipment on that list was seized. The 800 MHZ receivers
are possibly in violation of that one specific FCC regulation promulgated
to protect unencrypted analog cellphone service. The other devices were
seized under the very nebulous terms of 18/2512, which repeatedly speaks of
"knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it
primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire,
oral, or electronic communications", rather than any overt criminal act.
Pardon me, that sounds like thoughtcrime to me. Low power FM transmitter
microphones are, I presume, interpreted as being for the purpose of
"surreptitious interception of... oral... communications". This would make
a Furby in a paper bag illegal! (And Furbys _are_ seen as threats, banned
from CIA and NSA workspaces.)
However, 18/2512 also exempts "a provider of wire or electronic
communication service" or "an officer, agent, or employee of, or a person
under contract with, the United States, a State, or a political subdivision
thereof" and allows them and their agents "to send through the mail, send
or carry in interstate or foreign commerce, or manufacture, assemble,
possess, or sell any electronic, mechanical, or other device knowing or
having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily
useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or
electronic communications."
This smacks of medieval guilds- only members and the king's agents are
privy to the guild's secrets... and exempt from the restrictions placed on
the hoi polloi.
> There is a reason that the original report cited here comes from the 2600
> Hacker's website. It is a little late to deny the hacker connection now,
> after the hackers have worked so hard to defend one of their favorite
> vendors.
So if _any_ customers use a product for illicit purposes, the vendor is
liable? Man, I hope Radio Shack, Digikey, and Mouser have some good
lawyers. Hell, I've worked professionally with video cameras and FM
transmitters for _entirely legal_ aerospace research projects, using
vendors like Ramsey simply because they were economical. Does that make me
a hacker?
Guilds and thoughtcrime. Oh brave new world.
-- Doug Jones Rocket Plumber, XCOR Aerospace http://www.xcor-aerospace.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:26:09 MST