HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: harpe@netnews.louisville.edu (Mike Harpe)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Boycott Realistic/Radio Shack!
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:49:48 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

I will share what I do to protest the collection of the personal data at
Radio Shack when I make a cash purchase.

When they ask for the last four digits of my phone number, I pick a random
four digit number.  When the list pops up, I say i'm not on it, give a 
bogus name, the address of another Radio Shack and a permanent busy phone.
I do not feel the least bit guilty about doing this when it's a cash sale.
No amount of flaming will change my mind either.

If enough people did this, they would stop it.  Yes, yes, I know that big
purchases like scanners should be well documented for warranty purposes,
but I think that collecting this data when I buy a coax adapter is silly.

Mike
From: harpe@netnews.louisville.edu (Mike Harpe)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: To tattle, or not to tattle
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:06:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Louisville

This brings up several very pretty ethical  questions.   I  don't
think   you   are   obligated  to  report  this.   The  old  laws
specifically state that anything you hear on a scanner is not  to
be  repeated  to a third party.  This other unenforceable law was
supposed to do the same thing that the ECPA was trying to do.

I have heard stories of the IRS, FBI and other  Federal  agencies
using cordless phone monitoring to gather evidence.  Whether this
evidence is admissible or not is open to question.  I don't think
it  is,  but as sure as I say that, some lawyer will tell me that
it is.  I know that discovery rules come into play here.

I guess what it really boils down to is what kind of crime do you
consider  to  be  repugnant  enough  to report?  I would probably
report child molestation if I heard someone bragging about it.

There is another twist.  Some cities have what  amount  to  "fink
lines"  where  you  can  call to anonymously report crimes.  They
assign you a code number.  If your call results in an arrest  and
grand  jury  indictment,  you  get  $1000 IN CASH.  They actually
arrange a "drop" where they hand you the cash in exchange  for  a
code word.  They never actually know who you are.  I find the tax
implications of this fascinating but that's another article.

Think about it, you could make a  grand  for  listening  to  your
scanner.     They    don't   make   you   tell   how   you   know
something.......scary, huh?

The rule is: Don't say on  cellular  what  you  wouldn't  say  on
"Current Affair".

Mike Harpe, N4PLE
University of Louisville
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:09:46 EST
From: <DCS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Wanted: Inexpensive scanner

I'm looking for an inexpensive scanning device. In fact, my
primary goal is to monitor just one channel -- the local fire
band in this area, which I believe is at 46.14.

I'm not looking for any fancy options or anything, just something
that will let me know what is happening when the fire alarm
sounds. Portable -- even the belt clip or shirt pocket size --
would be OK, too.

Anybody have suggestions or something in the gadget box that would
do the trick for me? The local Radio Shack had a nice little
4-channel crystal pocket scanner, but it didn't the band in which
the local fire frequency is located. (Rats...)

- Dave
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: kevin.jessup <kevin.jessup@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: New BC200XLT Mod, anybody tried it yet?
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:01:43 GMT

In <1992Nov12.160600.7338@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:

>I have one of the newer BC200XLT scanners that use the "surface mount"
>resistor instead of the "normal" type.
>I have a copy of the mod, and have taken apart the radio and found the
>resistor and IC involved.
>In one of Bob Parnass' articles, (i believe) he mentions that one must
>"not solder in anyway" these "surface mount" electronics.
>My question is, has anyone tried the mod on the "newer" BC200XLT scanner?
>I have a brand new radio and don't want to ruin it.

My 200xlt has the surface-mount resistors.  I had no trouble performing
the mod.  Just use a very sharp pair of miniature wire cutters. (I have
an Xcelite model 84CG.)  Just cut that little bugger in half straight
through the middle!  Using a small brush, remove any residue.  I had
no problem with the surrounding pads or printed circuit board traces
comming loose.  (Your mileage may vary! ;-)  Note the resistor I am
talking about does not have stripes but a numeric label of "103".

-- 
Kevin Jessup, kevin.jessup@mixcom.mixcom.com

        "Friends don't let friends run DOS."
                          -- Microware
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: kevin.jessup <kevin.jessup@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: What is diff between BC200 and BC205?
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 18:53:09 GMT

In <1992Nov6.195538.9471@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:

>kevin.jessup <kevin.jessup@mixcom.mixcom.com> writes:

>>My 200xlt came with a gray case, my 100xlt with black.

> I was talking about the radio case itself, not the imitation-leather
> carrying case. is that what you were describing?

Oops!  Yes, I was referring to those "leather" carrying cases.

> my (less than 1 week old) bc200xlt is made of black plastic (vs grey on
> the bc205xlt) and came with a grey carrying case.

Yes.  My 100xlt is a dark gray.  My 200xlt is black.

Speaking of colors...

If I order a spare battery pack from Uniden or Metro West, will the plastic
of the spare pack match my scanner?  I know I know: quit whining, it's not
an auto-body paint job...just a spare battery pack! ;-)


-- 
Kevin Jessup, kevin.jessup@mixcom.mixcom.com

        "Friends don't let friends run DOS."
                          -- Microware
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: tvervaek@col.hp.com (Tom Vervaeke)
Subject: Re: To tattle, or not to tattle
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:47:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

I heard my neighbord call a live sex line one night and talk for about
30 minutes. If you didn't know they were using a telephone you'd have
guessed it was the olympics of sex.  Very funny. I could never look him
in the face again without laughing or smiling.

I heard another neighbor over a period of months conducting an affair
with someone else. I was a good friend of the spouse, I almost said
something but could not think of a way to do it without revealing my
sources.

Just recently I heard a neighbor of mine (not sure exactly sure, but it
was the next street over) bragging to a friend how he had cheated
someome on a used car he sold them. It was a used VW something and he
really had 213k on the car and sold it with 113k or something close. He
was laughing so hard about how the guy would be lucky if the car made it
home.  That really pissed me off. I'm just glad its not someone I am
friends with.

A friend with a scanner listened to his neighbor for months on end
talking to a girlfriend about every excrutiating detail of how
breastfeeding was ruining her life. I even heard some of this. I wonder
how he could even look at here without laughing.

Yes, a scanner is worth a million bucks just for entertainment value..

Regards.
From: turgd00@DMI.USherb.CA (DAVID TURGEON)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: To tattle, or not to tattle
Date: 12 Nov 92 02:26:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Universite de Sherbrooke -- Dept. d'Informatique

In article <1992Nov6.201912.26883@phx.mcd.mot.com> schuch@phx.mcd.mot.com (John Schuch) writes:
>This Favorite Transmission thread has made me curious.
>
>Suppose you were listening to cordless on night and heard a neighbor
>answer a call. In the conversation, the neighbor arranges for someone
>to come over and pick-up a small quantity of marijuana, say, two joints.
>
>Would you call the police?
>
>
>I have heard such a conversation and recognized the neighbor. Since
>then, I have from time to time contemplated if I was right in not
>reporting it. I am not comfortable doing nothing, yet I am not
>comfortable assuming the role of the neighborhood snoop'n'squeel.
>
>I have to make up my own mind and am curious about the "nets" opinion.
>
>John
>
>


From turgd00 Wed Nov 11 21:25:57 1992
To: /home/tohi/aut92/turgd00/.article

Well, since you overheard your neighbor by Illegally listening to a conversation
(or Immorally...)  I think you would be   WAY OUT OF LINE by snitching.

Even considering it makes me wonder what type of person you are....

This ain't no Illegal CONTAINER or TRUCK Full that could hurt childreen, this
is you neigbour that want's to have a good time, well....LET HIM.....

See Y'a

-- 
test
From: darrellm@pogo.wv.tek.com (Darrell McGinnis)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: To tattle, or not to tattle
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:45:59 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.




--------------------------

Excuse me for butting in on this thread but...


Wasn't the original poster verbally told by his "friend" that his friend
had just shoplifted the scanners ?

This is not a case of eavesdropping on a private conversation.

--------------------------

My guess is that most of us have confronted this type of thing
before.

I know, we all strech the letter of the law past the spirit of the 
law  as it is convenient. Welfare, taxes, traffic laws, etc.

We all have different tolerances for different crimes.

I can't comment on the morality, but I think that ethics is
easier...


I'd tell my "friend" that I am pretty disappointed in his actions
and that I usually don't count shoplifters as friends or hang out 
with them.

I'd tell him that what he does is his own affair, & please don't
brag about the less ethical things to me.

Also, that shoplifting is not victimless, prices go up to cover the
cost, we all paid for the scanners that were lifted.

Lastly, while I don't have a big cause to dislike you & intend you no harm,
if the authorities come a knockin' I won't lie for you.


So if he's still a friend OK , but if he can't play by these resonable
rules so be it.

--------------------

As for the thread where the two guys harassed the girl on the phone
after eavesdroppping... I think its pretty clear that there
was a victim & that was wrong any way you look at it. 

I hope that I don't see other posts like this.


--------------------
Having said that, I'm always shock by my complacency when
it comes to "victimless" crimes. (I beleive that there are
VERY VERY  few victimless crimes, I don't want to pay for someone
elses irresponsibility)

However, I almost always stop to help the motorist & call in 
thier location to the State Troopers (esp if its a woman)
and will also call in (911) public confrontations between 
a man & a woman. (public confrontation == fights (verbal or physical) 
on a street or in a car visible while driving by)

darrell
--------
Darrell McGinnis				darrellm@pogo.WV.TEK.COM
Tektronix, Inc., P.O. Box 1000, MS 63-356
Wilsonville, OR 97070
(503) 685-3285
--------
From: James_Zuchelli@qm.claris.com (James Zuchelli)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: ** THE FUTURE OF SCANNING? **
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:26:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Claris Corp

In article <1992Nov09.204333.6652@mixcom.com>, kevin.jessup@mixcom.mixcom.com (kevin.jessup) writes:
> 
> 
> With all the talk lately about privacy in the cellular and cordless
> phone bands, I got to thinking about the future of the "scanning" hobby.
> 
> What will it be like in 5 or 10 years?  No doubt digitally encrypted
> cordless and cellular phones will be common place.  What about the
> legal activity (at least legal where I live) of monitoring the
> police, sheriff and fire departments?  This is where I do 90% of
> my listening.  Will we see digital encryption and/or spread-spectrum
> technology here?  I don't doubt it!
> 
> Receiving and decoding digitally encoded or spread-spectrum signals
> will probably be illegal.  Receivers that can monitor such signals
> will also be illegal.  While skilled RF and software engineers
> could build receivers to crack the code, such knowledge is beyond
> the reach of the average scanner enthusiast.
> 
> (deleted)

I think we may very well be monitoring heart monitors from hospitals and
delivery services, and a lot of older systems that now a days we would call
bboring.  Of course, someone may come up with a digital decryption program
that will look like something else and get posted all over the country.

It is my bet that scanning will still be alive, but there will be more digital
encryption.  Some people have told me that the Oakland CA PD which is using
a trunked 800 system is also using DVP (Digital Voice Protection) increasingly.

James Zuchelli

----------
The above is my personal opinion and not that of Claris Corp. or my Employer.
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Subject: Re: To tattle, or not to tattle
    <1dmkjeINNhim@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> 
    <VBREAULT.92Nov9174246@rinhp750.gmr.com> 
    <VBREAULT.92Nov10154222@rinhp750.gmr.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:16:21 GMT
Organization: University of Kentucky, USA. -5 GMT

"scanner enthusiasts" get about as much respect as gun-owners and
motor-cycle riders. which is less than they ought to.
all of the above = hobbies those "different from the norm" pursue, per society.
and in my opinion (i fit all 3 above) most scanner enthusiasts would have
a more "civil liberties" based psyche than a "blindly follow every rule" one.
and i think the replies here bear this out. about 9 to 1 against ratting.


Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: How to go mobile in New York
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:23:33 GMT

oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:

>In <Bx8BtH.G71@eis.calstate.edu> jherndo@eis.calstate.edu (John Herndon) writes:

>>How about PRESS.  They should probably be able to carry scanners in their
>>cars.  TO chase down that news story.
>You may think they should be but in New York it is not enough just to be
>press.  You have to have press credentials from the police.  

>Easier and better just to become a licensed ham, I'd say.

Just what is the law in New York state with respect to hams having
scanners in the car, anyways?
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
Security Classification: *** TOP SECRET ***
From: WALLY@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Mods for PRO-42.  Are there any??
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:56:56 GMT
Organization: University of Keentookey

Would someone please tell me if there are any mods for the PRO-42 scanner.
I can not find them on the mod server or the mod FTP site..  Nor have I
encountered any messages on this scanner..
 
Did Rat Shack only make one of them or something? :)
 
Thanks..
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: ** THE FUTURE OF SCANNING? **
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:40:02 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Nov10.215857.28142@sbcs.sunysb.edu> rick@cs.sunysb.edu (Richard Spanbauer) writes:
]
]        Why?  There will be millions of transceivers capable of
]        receiving the stuff - the celltels themselves.  Modify, and
]        you're scanning again!  It may take a skilled individual to
]	crack the first one, but after that the techniques would
]	very likely be widely available.

Not necessarily. For example, the cell system may use negotiated
keys, and the unit you get may not be able to use a key negotiated between
the cell site and someone else. Furthermore, if they use encryption similar
to that used by the VideoCipher-II, GOOD LUCK trying to unscramble it.
You would have to program your unit (assuming you figured out how to
do that) to have the same secret ID number as the phone you are planning
to listen to - an ID number which NEVER has to be broadcast. The methods
that were used to crack the VideoCipher-II will not work in this sort
of situation. Probably the only way to listen in would be to break the
DES code, which world-class experts have worked at for a long time and
been unable to do. If I had any say in how a cell system would be
set up, this is the sort of thing I would do for encryption. With today's
technology, it adds almost nothing to the cost of any digital cellular
system - a few thousand more transistors on one of the VLSI chips.

Note that the FBI or NSA could still tap the phone simply by having a database
of the secret key numbers of a phone (or of knowing the key assignment
algorithm). Alternatively, they could simply tap into the cell switching
site, where the data is unencrypted.
From: drw@esl.com (Dave Waters)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Freq. for traffic reporters  in Portland, OR area
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:16:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.radio.scanner
Distribution: or
Organization: ESL Inc.

In article <1992Nov05.013604.3536@news.mentorg.com>,
mjohnson@pdx.mentorg.com (Mark Johnson) wrote:
> 
> A couple of years ago I was able to listen to the traffic reporters
> that you hear on the broadcast radio stations as they talked to 
> each other and filed their reports.  The frequency was in the
> mid-400MHz range, as I recall.
> 
> I have recently tried to listen to them again, but don't get anything
> on the frequencies I have programmed into my scanner from the old
> days.
> 
> Does anyone know where the traffic reporters have moved?
> 
>                                          
I think the best way to locate these folks is to just search 450 to 451
mHz. If that's what you mean by the old days' frequencies, then they're
probably somewhere in the 800/900 mHz business allocations.

Most of the traffic people in the air are in this segment, in my experience
in the SF Bay Area and Washington, DC area. Still!

                 +-------------------------+
|  | |  |  |     | Dave Waters    WA6AWZ   |
+--+-+--+--+     | drw@esl.com             |
|  |||  |  |     | Compuserve: 73277,311   |
    |            +-------------------------+
    |
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: crippenw@ucs.orst.edu (William Crippen)
Subject: Encryption Questions
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:36:14 GMT

	I've been seeing a lot of talk lately about scrambling and encryption,
        and am wondering about some new noises I'm hearing on  local police
        frequencies. I hear clicks and beeps on federal channels, and am
        assuming this is digital encryption. I know the "donald duck" sounds
        on the local cab frequencies are done with phase inversion. What I'm
        starting to hear now is a blank noise carrier, followed by a short 
        high-pitch squeal-like beep. I've even heard replies in normal voice,
        and I've heard other officers complain about the blank carriers.
	  Any ideas on what this might be? It seems to be getting more popular
	in this area. Could it be sub-carrier transmissions like the elevator
	music attached to regular FM broadcasts?  Thanks for the info....
		Replies can be sent to CRIPPENW@UCS.ORST.EDU
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: FCC & Microfiche:
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:09:30 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Nov2.141310.1496@news.unomaha.edu>, rerickso@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ronald D. Erickson) writes:
> 
> Does the FCC directly or indirectly sanction the sale
> of FCC frequency microfiche for the United States?
> I remembering visiting a FCC office ten years ago when
> they had both the microfiche and reader to inspect
> transmitter allocations around the country.  I remembering
> reading in Monitoring Times there is a retailer who sells
> each state on microfiche for 20 bucks or so. 
> If the government sells it, I doubt it would be that
> expensive.

The FCC does indeed sell it -- it's public knowledge, based on the fact they 
these are (supposed to be) public airwaves.  Scanner Master sells it by the 
state, with quarterly updates. I don't recall where they are, however.

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
From: aa519@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Scotty Meredith)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Uniden XC365 Cordless Phone
Date: 11 Nov 1992 01:08:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aa519@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Scotty Meredith)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jherndo@eis.calstate.edu (John Herndon) says:

>The Uniden XC365 has Safe & Secure(tm).
>
>	"Security is provided by Uniden's Autosecure(tm) feature
>	 that automatically locks your phone when the handset is
>	 in the base.  The Random Code(tm) digital security auto-
>	 matically selects a digital security code to prevent your
>	 phone being activated by other electronic equipment."	
>
>Fairly nice piece of equipment.  They say that the Random Code helps
>prevent from other people billing to your phone.  To bad it only has two
>channels. 
>
>	==] John Herndon / JHerndo@eis.calstate.edu [==
>



I have a Radio Shack cordless that has the same (or simular) thing.  The
only thing this prevents is someone with a cordless phone on the same
frequency from dialing out on your phone.  My cordless is set to channel 9.
 I sometimes get interfearance when I am talking on it, and then switch to
a reegular phone, and turn my scanner on to channel 9.  Some dweeb (dont
know who he is), that must live in my same apartment complex, also has a
cordless set to channel 9, so when I hear the interfearance, I just listen
to what he has to say....  (usually boring)...

Scotty\
-- 
Yes, it is true, I -AM- a scanner listener.  You are violating my air
space, while you are puffing away on your cigarette, talking on your
cellular phone.  First you complain about smokers rights, then you complain
when I listen to your phone conversations??!! THis is my air too bub!!  -ME
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,misc.legal