Just to be on the safe side, I have not included any names of providers. No slight intended.
Some of the info is repeated just so I'd have everything in one neat little package.
Tim
The Value of Time
To realize the value of one year: Ask a student who has failed a final exam.
To realize the value of one month: Ask a mother who has given birth to a premature baby.
To realize the value of one week: Ask an editor of a weekly newspaper.
To realize the value of one hour: Ask the lovers who are waiting to meet.
To realize the value of one minute: Ask the person who has missed the train, bus or plane.
To realize the value of one second: Ask a person who has survived an accident.
To realize the value of one millisecond: Ask the person who has won a silver medal in the Olympics.
Time waits for no one. Treasure every moment you have. You will treasure it even more when you can share it with someone special.
Here's the rest of the replies pertaining to portable phone conversations.
Tim,
Check out 18USC2511(a). The whole thing is available at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/ch119.html This is our Bible,
and anyone in the business should have a copy of this law on the desk
for ready reference.
Bob
Watch me talk into a circle....
This might fall under the "One Party/ Two party consent" rules, depending on
the state. As it leaves the base/phone and turns into "airspace", this might
now fall under a different jurestiction of regulations, opening up a good
argument for the defendant and maybe allowing the recordings to be dismissed
from evidence as illigal evidence.. Interesting question indeed. Last I heard,
there was an uproar within the scanner community on there being severe
regulations on scanner listening.....in general.
My question~ (probably same as above)~ "If" it is LEGAL to listen to those phone conversations (I beleive not), is it also LEGAL to record them?
More interesting question~
Baby monitors~ "The self inflicted room bug"~ These are not telephones. Do the same rules as a telephone apply here?
Since the Communications Act of 1934 is as ammended, I would say that the other provision of the act are still enforceable.
Particularly the regulations regarding 3rd party dissemination.
Therefore, while listening would not be illegal, allowing that information to pass to a 3rd party would be ...
Regards,
George
Well, folks, that about does it for the replies received. This information is being consolidated with previous responses and posted as a bulletin board.
Tim:
At a seminar presented here about 2 months ago by a former U.S. Attorney, he stated that recent legislation had changed the law. We all know that USC18 did exclude that portion of the call from the base to the phone on 49 MHz. He stated, although I haven't personally read the new law, that it is now illegal.
Tim:
From the 'Handbook on State Laws Regarding Secretly Recording Your Own Conversations' (I have the Third Edition, about four years old) by Barbara Rowan, Attorney at Law, published by Independent Hill Press, PO Box 1417 D9, Alexandria, VA, 22313, (703) 823-2758.
"Non-encrypted transmissions between a cordless telephone and its base unit and tone-only paging devices are not protected communications. The speaker's belief in the private nature of the conversation is not reasonable. The same standard is applied in EPCA 2510(12) and 2511 (2)(g) to marine and aeronautical communications systems; public safety radio systems, amateur radio operators, Citizens Band, or General Mobile Radio, and electronic bulletin boards."
"Communications on the radio portion of Cordless telephones are clearly not protected."
We've made extensive use of this Handbook, which includes Federal and State laws that impact all aspects of the technical surveillance business, including video.
One quick war story- We had a case several years ago, in which a National Public Figure was 'sure' that his phone lines were tapped by the press. We found that his practice was to constantly walk around his house with a cordless phone on his shoulder, talking business. We found a van, belonging to a reporter for a (BIG) local newspaper, very frequently parked in easy range of his house. We convinced him to give up the cordless!
Hope that helps. I'm not sure the address or phone number is current, but I highly recommend the Handbook!
Tom
Tim, Regarding interception of 49 MHZ and (00MHZ phone calls...... When the Electronics Communications Principles Act of 1986 was first passed in, guess when,.... 1986. It was legal to intercept the conversation between the hand set and base unit of "cordless telephones". 49 MHZ was the frequency in use then, 900 MHZ came later. Cell phone conversatons were protected in that first passing, I guess a better lobby. However in October of 1992 (or 1993, or 1994) can't remember which, the ECPA of 1986 was ammended to protect the conversation on the "cordless portion of a telephone between the handset and the base unit". Up until then, we had a great time listening to the "bad Guys" discuss deals over their cordless phone. Bottom line....interception of telephone conversations over wire or the air waves without the consent of one of the parties to the conversation is a violation of Title 18, Section 2511 USC. State laws must follow the same requirements and in some states it is more restrictive....ask Linda Tripp.
Hi Tim,
The lawyer wins. Although it may not - strictly speaking - be illegal to monitor cordless phone conversations (in some states) it is clearly illegal to "intercept AND divulge" those protected communications.
Check this out: 47 U.S.C. Section 605, "Unauthorized Publication of Communications." Section 705.
This means that even if one "hears" a crime being planned, committed or discussed on a protected communications device - one may not "divulge" that information to any third party. (The only exception is a court ordered warrant, etc. etc.)
Regarding the act of recording a phone conversation - the rules vary from state to state. In my state it is legal to record a phone conversation in which one of the participants has consented. In other states both (or all) participants must give their consent.
Best of luck to the PI but he/she should listen to the lawyer......
Regarding the open letter to the President: Bravo!!!!!
Last of all - how was the gater tail???
To my simple understanding, approximately two-three years ago, a not so bright PI or want-a-be went on a national TV show to explain how bright he was not. He told of sitting at the end of the runway and monitoring Airforce 1 and explained how simple it was to listen to telephone calls made by the Pres and VP using a programmable scanner.
This got the attention of some lawmakers who figured out that there was no law against scanning cellular telephones......so they passed a law making it illegal to scan cell phones. From this passed a law against portable telephones, but since portable telephones work basically on the same principal as a CB radio...they decided that it was ok to scan but illegal to tape these calls.
So that my understanding.....for one I vote for the lawyer.
Tim,
Check out 18USC2511(a). The whole thing is available at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/ch119.html This is our Bible,
and anyone in the business should have a copy of this law on the desk
for ready reference.
Bob
Dear Tim:
With respect to 46Mhz-49Mhz telephones federal law would seemingly allow such monitoring; however, there have been federal restrictions against this of recent vintage. Further, for example, Florida's state [Florida is a two party consent state] statute mirrors the federal scheme and states that there is no expectation of privacy for the portion of the RF between the base unit and handset. Despite the plain language of the statute, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that there is an expectation of privacy and recording and use of those conversations from a cordless telephone would be contrary to the state's statute and give rise to a state tort action. Hence, it seems wise to scrunitize each state's statutes as well as case interpretation before doing something rather than finding out later it wasn't such a good idea.
Reference telephone line testing:
Re: Some questions about phone taps~
IMHO: (a bit long, sorry...)
Multimeters have very limited reliability. Since multimeters will only give an indication of DC resistance, any capacitively coupled device (i.e. VOX recorder w/ tel adapter) will be undetectable. To get any real information from them you must do open and closed circuit tests of the line under test. This leads to the question of how far up the line you go. The most BASIC survey should go to the first telco junction. To perform open/closed tests you need to get into the box, which without permission (a pain) is trespass.
Aside from a thorough visual inspection (which can lead to trespass problems as well), I would recommend a frequency and transient (TDR) analysis of the line. A spectrum analyzer will (usually) show RF type devices as well as characteristic patterns of many tape recorders (motor noise, bias osc's, etc.)
Akin to the use of a TDR, a line impedance test (a multimeter does not measure impedance, but resistance) is very useful for detecting abnormalities. A tool such as a network analyzer is used for such things (not the computer network type). The unit measures the line impedance over a frequency range by injecting its own signal onto the line and measuring the corresponding voltage/current at the port. Really a frequency domain version of a TDR.
As for frying, I don't think it's a good idea. You would need to do it in open an closed line configurations like the multimeter test. Shorted line for series types (fried by current). Open line for parallel types. 120V wouldn't be enough for parallel as it is not much more than a standard ring. A 120V line will certainly fry your phone lines in closed circuit configuration (but I guess the bug would be gone too :)
My $0.02,
I'll post more as they come in.
Tim
Subject: Phone Recordings-Cordless phones
I know for a fact that in New York State it is illegal to eavesdrop on cordless or cellular phone conversations which operate on the 49mz to 900mz frequencies. Federal law also applies and there is a civil statute pertaining to "invasion of privacy" that would be used to sue someone in civil court for monetary damages.
There was a Federal case however in Florida, which involved FBI/DEA agents monitoring and recording the phone conversations of a suspected drug dealer. When he was finally arrested and convicted on the tapes, his lawyer appealed on the grounds that the FBI/DEA did not have a warrant to intercept the telephone conversations. The Feds argued that they did not need a warrant, because the drug dealer should have known that he was speaking on a cordless telephone, which could be intercepted by anyone, and therefore he had "no reasonable expectation of privacy".
The appellate court agreed and upheld the conviction, stating that the FBI/DEA acted in good faith and within the law. Now what does that tell you? That it's ok for the FBI to intercept and record phone calls over the 49mz to 900mz without a warrant, but if an ordinary citizen or a PI does it, he is committing a Felony! This is called "Justice For All".