Article 92059 of rec.radio.scanner:
From: Nobody Special <postmaster@127.0.0.1>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.policy,alt.lawyer,alt.radio.scanner,alt.law-enforcement,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Arrest of pager interceptors in NYC
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 19:24:04 -0500
Organization: None
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <340616A4.6C2F@127.0.0.1>
References: <5u2alo$cvj@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3405624F.728E@iservgrr.com> <5u4csh$kob$1@gte1.gte.net>
Reply-To: postmaster@127.0.0.1
NNTP-Posting-Host: jacob-23.d.enteract.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (OS/2; I)
Path: matra.meer.net!news.spies.com!news.sgi.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.enteract.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!news
Xref: matra.meer.net rec.radio.scanner:92059 rec.radio.amateur.policy:52197 alt.radio.scanner:51342 alt.law-enforcement:119497 alt.rush-limbaugh:180226

Greg Dean wrote:
> [ snip ]
> Well, it looks like we may now have a court challenge to the Electronic
> Communications Privacy Act.  I have not seen a better case.  Is it unlawful
> for the government to forbid you from receiving transmissions that are
> broadcast?  

I seem to recall that the law prohibits "interception" of broadcasts. 
Now, the "ordinary" meaning of "interception" has the "interceptor"
PREVENTING an intended recipient from receiving the broadcast (witness
the "Hail Mary" pass in a football game; go look up the definitions of
"broadcast"; the one that means roughly "shout from the rooftops"
applies here), but the "legal" definition of "intercept[ion]" includes
merely "receiving" (or hearing) a broadcast (or speech) not intended for
a particular receiver (e.g., you).  That is exactly like prohibiting a
person who understands, say, French from "hearing" a conversation
between participants speaking  French in a "non-French-speaking"
environment (e.g., "anywhere", USA).  Our "eavesdropper" certainly does
not PREVENT any participant in the French conversation from hearing
("receiving") any "transmission" in French uttered by any other
participant in that conversation, but under the "legal" definition of
"intercept[ion]" can be deemed guilty of a CRIME.

> Now, breaking encryption is another story.  

What is encryption, but another "foreign language"?  You can't speak
"gibberish"?  Your problem, not mine.

> Digital moduation
> may encode but is not a cryptogram.  It is a means to sending a message.
> Hopefully their lawyers understand what they have and do not push for a
> plea bargain.

I'm not sure what lawyers in general are "for", but precious few seem to
be "for" principles...

      -ns-