SH> The author is not a lawyer, as would be quite apparent by my 
mmentaries.
That says a lot right there.
SH> Secondly, I do not guarentee that everything I say is 100 percent 
rrect,
Another NEEDED disclaimer.
SH> in the normal course of his employment and in discharge of his monitoring
SH> responsibilities exercised by the Commision in the enforcement of
That doesn't cover much, really.  While it DOES allow an FCC employee to 
monitor almost anything, it MUST be within the 'normal course of their 
employement'.  Thus, a secretary could NOT use that to excuse monitoring 
cellphones.
SH> ECPA makes reference to Chapter 5 Title 47 and would seem to limit
Yes, it certainly DOES say that.  To be valid, you'd HAVE to reference that 
to see exactly what it covers.
SH> 2511 - 2 - (B) - (c) It shall not be unlawfull under this chapter for
SH> a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral or
SH> The above clause was added for obvious simple reason. That being so the
SH> very people who use a cordless or cell phone dont go to jail for
SH> simply using their cell or cordless phone.  However, the provision is
SH> also sufficently clear as it should be, to allow any third party to
SH> intercept the conversation (WITH A SCANNER (or any other device he
SH> so chooses) to intercepot that cellular call or cordless phone call
SH> with a scanner or other receiving device so long as the third party
SH> has consent from only 1 party to the communication.
SH> To be more direct and to the point...  That means that reception of
SH> a cellular call is NOT illegal and I can do so with my own scanning
SH> receiver (provided the scanner itself is legal)  so long as I have
SH> permission from the party whos cellular or cordless call I want to
SH> intercept.   So that blows to hell anyones theory that intercepting
SH> cellular and cordless is blanketly illegal for everyone (without 
arrant).
SH> [PROVIDED that in my interception, I have no 'other' criminal intent.]
It SPECIFICALLY says 'under color of Authority'  Unless you are a Law 
Enforcement Officer within your jurisdiction, you could NOT use that section 
to monitor anything.
SH> It means simply, if I suspect ANY frequency whatsoever (including 
ellular
SH> or cordless is interfering with my "consumer appliances" I can track
SH> and monitor that cordless or cellular channel and the conversation on
You'd BETTER be able to show some such evidence to indicate that it was a 
cellular or cordless phone causing the interference.  If you're a Ham 
operator, you SHOULD know how to determine such.
... Never try to out stubborn a cat.
--- ProBoard v2.15 [Reg]
---------------