Sir,

Mr. Kane has a life *and* an education.
Are you jealous?

Curious in Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Phillip Michael" wrote in message ...
Is an entity such as a public school allowed to adopt a policy that allow
them to confiscate any device on their property that interferes with their
wireless devices?

Dunno. For example?

For example:
Both devices are Part 15.
The school owns a wireless access point.
A student owns a cordless phone.

If a cordless phone interferes with a wireless access point and
the school's policy says "they have the right to confiscate any device that
interferes with their wireless network"
Does the school really have the right to confiscate the cordless phone?

Not only can't they confiscate it, but they cannot even monitor it.

Since the Gingrich interception, the monitoring of cellular and
cordless phones has been illegal. But you knew that.

See any scanner catalog. Notice the really expensive scanners that
anyone overseas can purchase really cheap, but not you?

Those expensive scanners are for law enforcement agencies only. They
receive cellular frequencies. See the fine print.

To be able to monitor cellular or cordless phones requires a law
enforcement agency and a judge. The judge services the search
warrant/wire tap. Except for homeland security. I think just about
anything goes there.

Schools are not law enforcement agencies, or are they?

Also if a student's device is under part 97 do you still have the right to
confiscate it?

Barrister Phil should say no. But lately he's been saying all sorts
of things.

Here is a phrase from Part 15.5.b
interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an
authorized radio station

Does this only apply to a device or to an individual using a device?

Are Part 15 devices authorized?

Part 15 says they are. Doesn't say "who" is authorized to use them.
I assume they are lawfully used by citizens, hams, school children,
and even Taliban.

I'm not a communications attorney, nor do I pretend to be one on
R.R.A.P., but Phil might be able to help you - if he's not mistaken.

(Hans K0HB) wrote in message . com...
(Len Over 21) wrote

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

Since a
cell phone transmits a signal even when not placing a call, they can
require that the unit be turned off at all times while on the
premises.

It does?

Yes, Lenover, it does.

To which question do you answer?

Transmitting a signal even when its not placing a call?

Requirement to turn off a -lawfully- allowed RF device?

Hopefully not yes to both.

Oh, yes, the receiver's Local Oscillator "transmits" a
picayune picoWatt or so...

And much more than the picayunish oscillator leakage you allude to (if
the receiver is even so crude as to have an actual Local
Oscillator)......

Instead of the "DX" oscillator?

I've heard of cell site conmfirmation from 27 nm.

Thank goodness cell phones don't require a knowledge of Morse Code.

It would have been a monumental flop.

As soon as a cell phone is powered up it immediately establishes radio
communications with the MTSO over the control channel, comparing
SID's, negotiating a registration request, and other similar
housekeeping chores.

Just relax and call it handshaking.

This radio communications occurs even if you
never actually place an outgoing call or recieve an incoming call.

Doesn't even rate a "duh!"

That's why you find guys at the other end of the tunnel standing by
with computer controlled "law enforcement" scanners logging all the
codes as you pop out the other side and handshake with the local cell
site.

Then they sell them to Taliban operatives and drug dealers.

Sunuvagun!

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

Yeh. Dittos

Brian

(Brian) wrote


This radio communications occurs even if you
never actually place an outgoing call or recieve an incoming call.

Doesn't even rate a "duh!"

You know that and I know that, but Lenover didn't even have a clue.

Sunuvagun!

With warmest personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

On 31 Oct 2003 17:18:22 -0800, Brian wrote:

Also if a student's device is under part 97 do you still have the right to
confiscate it?

Barrister Phil should say no.

Radio devices cannot be consfiscated by anyone because they are not
contraband as "controlled substances" are.

The school can seize (remove it from the student's possession) and
hold it for safekeeping until the student leaves the property only
if the student is on notice that this will happen if s/he does not
voluntarily turn it off or refrain from using it.

Of course the school will use the word "confiscate" but that's not
what's happening.

But lately he's been saying all sorts of things.

In which of the two languages that I am fluent in, the one language
that I can stumble through, or the several languages in which I can
curse ??

Does this only apply to a device or to an individual using a device?

Are Part 15 devices authorized?

Part 15 says they are. Doesn't say "who" is authorized to use them.
I assume they are lawfully used by citizens, hams, school children,
and even Taliban.

There is a restriction that Part 15 devices cannot be used for any
unlawful purpose. Ordering a plate of hummus and ypreki (stuffed
grape leaves) or kibbe (ground lamb kebabs) is not unlawful.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On 31 Oct 2003 17:35:18 -0800, Brian wrote:

That's why you find guys at the other end of the tunnel standing by
with computer controlled "law enforcement" scanners logging all the
codes as you pop out the other side and handshake with the local cell
site.

Then they sell them to Taliban operatives and drug dealers.

And they sell then to the guys who sell them to other guys who clone
cellphones which are sold to still other guys who set up curbside
"telephone booths" in immigrant neighborhoods to call relatives in
foreign countries at "discount rates".

At least they did have been doing those things for the last 10 years.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Well, my mistake to think it was something like a high school or grade
school.

If it indeed jepardized safety, maybe it would be an issue, as hospitals ban
them (cell and other transcievers...) but if it is interfering with
something else, especially part 15 devices, I don't think they would have
alot of ground to stand on.... merely opinion though.


"Phillip Michael" wrote in message
...
Actually I wanted to specifically say cordless phone, because college
policies also apply to any student living in a campus dorm.

Here is a link to GaTech's wireless policy.

http://www.oit.gatech.edu/inside_oit...es/Wireless_Ne
twork_Usage_Policy_Rev1.9.cfm

They are doing two thing I don't agree with:
1) Banning wireless devices based on interference with their wireless
network.
2) Giving themselves the right to regulate all wireless devices on campus
property.

Phillip Michael
gtg154a @mail.gatech.edu

Phil Kane wrote:
On 31 Oct 2003 17:35:18 -0800, Brian wrote:

That's why you find guys at the other end of the tunnel standing by
with computer controlled "law enforcement" scanners logging all the
codes as you pop out the other side and handshake with the local cell
site.

Then they sell them to Taliban operatives and drug dealers.

And they sell then to the guys who sell them to other guys who clone
cellphones which are sold to still other guys who set up curbside
"telephone booths" in immigrant neighborhoods to call relatives in
foreign countries at "discount rates".

At least they did have been doing those things for the last 10 years.

I don't think this happens very often any more, however. All the digital
phone standards I know about (CDMA, TDMA and GSM, I don't know about iDEN)
use encryption, both on the control channel and for the voice payload.
While I've seen academic criticism of the algorithms they use, I don't
think there is a practical way for a guy with a scanner hearing the
signals to crack this. Digital mobile phone service is still secure for
practical purposes.

The cellphone cloners used to get their data from the AMPS control
channel, which was unencrypted, but I'm pretty sure there are no cell
phone companies left which sell exclusively analog phone service (it has
probably been 5 years or more since you could buy an analog-only phone).
AMPS support continues to exist, by FCC mandate, only to support
off-network roaming, which means that pretty much the only AMPS users
you're likely to find are people away from home in rural areas not covered
by their provider's digital service. This is a small enough population
that the reduced opportunities for fraud of this type hardly justify
the cost of the equipment for programming the phones.

I think these days the bulk of cell phone fraud is subscriber fraud,
where service is obtained using someone else's name and personal
information.

Dennis Ferguson

On 4 Nov 2003 21:11:38 GMT, Dennis Ferguson wrote:

I think these days the bulk of cell phone fraud is subscriber fraud,
where service is obtained using someone else's name and personal
information.

That's what my sources tell me.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane