Twistedhed wrote:

_
9th Circuit Decides Wiretap Act Case
8/14.
The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in
Price v. Turner, a civil suit alleging violation of the Wiretap Act in
connection with the monitoring of cordless phone conversations. However,
since the events giving rise to this case occurred ten years ago, this
appeal was decided according to state of federal law prior to the 1994
amendments to the Wiretap Act.
Frank Turner used a radio scanner to listen to and record conversations
of his neighbors who used cordless telephones. These phones used analog
radio signals at fixed frequencies, and hence, were easy to monitor. He
heard discussions of criminal activities. Turner also informed the El
Dorado County Sheriff's Department, which told him to continue, and
provided him assistance. All of the intercepted phone communications at
issue in this case took place prior to the 1994 amendments to the
Wiretap Act. One person whose conversations he monitored was Leora
Price.
Price filed a civil complaint against Frank Turner and El Dorado County
alleging, among other things, violation of the Wiretap Act, invasion of
privacy, and a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District
Court granted summary judgment to defendants on all of Price's federal
claims. Price appealed.
The Appeals Court wrote that "At the time of its original enactment in
1968, the Wiretap Act did not expressly refer to the monitoring of radio
transmissions. When Congress enlarged the Act's coverage in 1986,
Congress explicitly excepted protection for the 'radio portion of a
cordless telephone communication.' ... It was not until 1994 that
Congress amended the Act to prohibit the interception of cordless
telephone communications." The Appeals Court affirmed.


Maybe you should read the things you cut and paste before offering them
up as a some sort of confirmation for your deficits in comprehension.
You should note that this case was thrown out because at the time of the
alleged infraction, that the defendant's actions were NOT illegal. Since
in my own case, the conversations which I overheard, that you are so
fond of convoluting, occured in 1984, which is also before the passage
of the ECPA, therfore like in the case above, I am guilty of nothing
illegal. Also note that wiretap laws vary from state to state, and
what's true in one state, may not be in another.

Legislation which attempts to give the illusion of the expectation of
privacy over unencrypted wireless phones, is equally ludicrious, as it
is basically unenforcable, unless one reveals the content that they
intercepted. The only true expectation of privacy comes with a
technological solution to the problem.

Dave
"Sandbagger"