No Subject

Politicians still think they're relevant...

Given that this bill passed 414-1, it'll likely be US law soon.

Does this mean that law enforcement will now need a judicial wiretap order
to go scanning for evidence to get a warrant?






http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/technology/story.html?s=n/reuters/98030
6/tech/stories/privacy_1.html
 Friday March 6 10:33 AM EST 

 House Passes Wireless Privacy Bill

 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a bid to protect privacy for cellphone or
digital calls, the House Thursday voted
 414-1 to make intercepting such phone conversations illegal. 

 The Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act makes clear that the act of
interception -- whether or not the call is later
 divulged or disseminated in any way -- is against the law. 

 It bans modification of scanners that are now on the market that can
easily pick up calls made on cell phones, and
 prevents a market for new scanners capable of intercepting digital
communications. 

 The bill, which the Senate has not yet acted on, increases penalties for
intercepting or divulging private
 communications, making them subject to a $2,000 fine and six months in
jail. Earlier laws had not treated such
 interceptions as serious offenses if they were not used for financial gain. 

 Although the bill had broad bipartisan support, it was a particular
favorite of Republicans, who were furious after a
 December 1996 cellphone conversation involving House Speaker Newt Gingrich
and fellow Republican leaders
 was taped by a Florida couple. House Republicans have alleged that
Washington Democratic Rep. Jim
 McDermott then leaked it. 

 McDermott -- who voted for the wireless privacy act -- has not publicly
commented on those allegations. 

 Ohio Republican Rep. John Boehner, who was using a cellphone in his wife's
car in that conversation with
 Gingrich, enthusiastically backed the bill. "Our message should be plain
and simple," he said. "If you violate
 someone's privacy, you are not creating idle mischief, you are breaking
the law and of the land and you will be
 brought to justice." 

 Roughly 50 million Americans use some kind of new mobile electronic
communications services, according to the
 bill's sponsors. 

 The sole vote against the bill came from Ron Paul, a Texas Republican. He
was not immediately available for
 comment. 
------------------------------------------------------------
      David Honig                   Orbit Technology
     honig@otc.net                  Intaanetto Jigyoubu

If you start now, the year 2038 problem might be tractable.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <3.0.5.32.19980306121618.007b7a10@otc.net>, on 03/06/98 
   at 12:16 PM, David Honig <honig@otc.net> said:

>Politicians still think they're relevant...

>Given that this bill passed 414-1, it'll likely be US law soon.

>Does this mean that law enforcement will now need a judicial wiretap
>order to go scanning for evidence to get a warrant?

Don't you know that an exemption clause for the FED's is standard trailer
on all Bill's passed by congress.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/esecure.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Tag-O-Matic: OS/2: Not just another pretty program loader!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a-sha1
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNQFYlY9Co1n+aLhhAQHBtQP9EDXJnXESt5cwwq/6DTpB06Yg2uCVeZe2
BUmF3BpzLPnW501usHoz/tTbHGsJdW2uSOFetWUyrljCY32mUxK6+kKkvv1zPHFG
Pa5zeMvlDeBaGbbdtmBP+3adMuBpfghke9fysFwX8oJIUsRpQ42AZGum8sE8Ncpy
LHCfCzCdZTs=
=MKPu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----