I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture
and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some
frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet
job. Just wanting to learn more about it.

Anyone willing to talk can email me @

Thanks

Michael Clarke

Yes, but if we tell ya anything then we'd be breaking some laws.

Being in journalism, you should know this already.



toplocker wrote:
I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture
and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some
frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet
job. Just wanting to learn more about it.

Anyone willing to talk can email me @

Thanks

Michael Clarke

"toplocker" wrote in message
om...
I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture
and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some
frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet
job. Just wanting to learn more about it.

Anyone willing to talk can email me @

Thanks

Michael Clarke

If you're in any kind of big city, just solicit 'on the air'.

A number of years ago, analog cell days, a friend called me and started
to talk on his cell about something that should have been kept secure.

I told him to stop, and he asked why. I told him there could be
eavesdroppers. He said no way, the cell phone company told him people
couldn't listen.

So we made a bet.

He gave his office number out 'over the air' in the call, and we asked any
listeners to call it and leave a message that they were out there. And we
made a bet on it. Sam Adams at the time...

As soon as we did that, he told me he was going to hang up and call his
office to make sure the phone messages were clear and he'd call me back.

I waited and waited. Finally he called. His office number was BUSY and
he couldn't get through to his voice mail. When he finally did, he had a
number of messages, seven if I recall.right, of people listening. One guy
even left a message with a signal strength report and he obviously had a
beam
as he reported 'direction' as my friend was driving...

Is it not now true that listening to unauthorised broadcasts was illegal? I
trhought the 'acting on information' law was old hat these days.


"ScannerManInScannerLand" wrote in message
. ..
Yes, but if we tell ya anything then we'd be breaking some laws.

Being in journalism, you should know this already.



toplocker wrote:
I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture
and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some
frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet
job. Just wanting to learn more about it.

Anyone willing to talk can email me @

Thanks

Michael Clarke

"toplocker" wrote in message
om...
I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture
and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some
frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet
job. Just wanting to learn more about it.

Anyone willing to talk can email me @

Thanks


Don't think you'll find anyone gullable enough on here to reply to you. LOL
some people!..

In article ,
says...

Back when anolog was still operational I demonstrated to a friend how easy it was to
listen. He recognised the person we were listening to.

I thought I heard someone listening to me

--
-----------
Dwayne
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BC895/

In article ,
says...
On 5 May 2004 10:38:29 -0700, (toplocker) wrote:

I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture
and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some
frequency.

The frequency with with some people listen to cell phones is 870 to 890 Mhz.

And Alinco DJ-580's will hear things in that band because the receiver
on those radios is wide open.

(toplocker) wrote in message . com...
I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture
and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some
frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet
job. Just wanting to learn more about it.

Anyone willing to talk can email me @

Thanks

Michael Clarke

(Note: discussions about cellular eavesdropping in this newsgroup led
to the enactment of the TDDRA - what you say will be used against you!)

The latest in the never-ending saga of the Gingrich ethics
story is ow also a McDermott ethics story dealing with a
cellular phone call. your coverage begins with a report by
Kwame Holman, followed by an analysis of the technical
aspects of the intercepted phone call,
and a discussion with two legislators. (January 14, 1997)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congr...ular_1-14.html
-

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986
was adopted to address the legal privacy issues that were
evolving with the growing use of computers and other new
innovations in electronic communications.

The ECPA updated legislation passed in 1968 that had been
designed to clarify what constitutes invasion of privacy
when electronic surveillance is involved.

President Reagan signed the Electronics Communication
Privacy Act into law on October 21, 1986. The ECPA was
designed to expand Title III privacy protection to apply
to radio paging devices, electronic mail, cellular
telephones, private communication carriers, and
computer transmissions.

The ECPA was originally endorsed by the ACLU and promoted
to protect civil liberties.
-----

United States Code TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 119 - WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
INTERCEPTION AND INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

(16) ''readily accessible to the general public'' means, with
respect to a radio communication, that such communication
is not
-
(A) scrambled or encrypted;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential
parameters have been withheld from the public with the
intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a
radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a
common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only
paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25,
subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the
Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a
communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part
74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary
services, the communication is a two-way voice communication
by radio;

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2510.html
------

Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act of 1992 (TDDRA)

Public Law: 102-556 (10/28/92)
H.R.6191 SPONSOR: Rep Swift (introduced 10/06/92)
S.1579 SPONSOR: Sen Inouye (introduced 07/29/91)
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c102query.html [H.R.6191.ENR]
SEC. 403. INTERCEPTION OF CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS. --


FCC Rules: PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

Sec. 15.121 Scanning receivers and frequency converters used
with scanning receivers.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section,
scanning receivers and frequency converters designed or
marketed for use with scanning receivers, shall:

(1) Be incapable of operating (tuning), or readily being
altered by the user to operate, within the frequency bands
allocated to the Cellular Radiotelephone Service in part 22
of this chapter (cellular telephone bands). Scanning receivers
capable of ``readily being altered by the user'' include,
but are not limited to, those for which the ability to
receive transmissions in the cellular telephone bands can be
added by clipping the leads of, or installing, a simple
component such as a diode, resistor or jumper wire;
replacing a plug-in semiconductor chip; or programming
a semiconductor chip using special access codes or an
external device, such as a personal computer.

Scanning receivers, and frequency converters designed for
use with scanning receivers, also shall be incapable of
converting digital cellular communication transmissions
to analog voice audio.

(continued)
http://tinyurl.com/yvs9g

Only if the person has a speakerphone, or the volume up to much.

Then you cant help hearing them as they YELL at the caller.

I hate NEXTEL (speakerphone and the beeping) and stupid people who
dont turn down the volume!!!! They dont even realise they are yelling
into the phone.

I didnot until my wife said something.

As for radio RX, that is a NO-NO


On 5 May 2004 10:38:29 -0700, (toplocker) wrote:

I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture
and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some
frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet
job. Just wanting to learn more about it.

Anyone willing to talk can email me @

Thanks

Michael Clarke

I can't think of a more stupid request !!!!
b.j.



"w2rac" wrote in message
...
Only if the person has a speakerphone, or the volume up to much.

Then you cant help hearing them as they YELL at the caller.

I hate NEXTEL (speakerphone and the beeping) and stupid people who
dont turn down the volume!!!! They dont even realise they are yelling
into the phone.

I didnot until my wife said something.

As for radio RX, that is a NO-NO


On 5 May 2004 10:38:29 -0700, (toplocker) wrote:

I'm a freelance journalist doing an article on cel phone spy culture
and would love to talk to some people who have done this with some
frequency. I can quote anonymously and am not looking to do a hatchet
job. Just wanting to learn more about it.

Anyone willing to talk can email me @

Thanks

Michael Clarke