HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: randall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Michael Randall)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Encryption Questions
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:52:52 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle

In article <BxIMGF.2LG@news.orst.edu>, crippenw@ucs.orst.edu (William Crippen) writes:
> 
> 	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
[edited down]
> 		Replies can be sent to CRIPPENW@UCS.ORST.EDU

Well, I'D LIKE TO KNOW TOO! I do know that a lot of Police and Fire Dept's
are adding computers to their vehicles, and it's possible they are using
their regular audio band to pass that stuff too.
-- 
  Michael W. Randall           | What does a snail say when it rides on the
  randall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com | back of a turtle? "Wheeee!"
   ...!uunet!bcstec!randall    | --Taken from someone on The Comedy Channel
From: wells@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (John Wells)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:57:02 GMT
Subject: Re: Pro-2006 scanner for $336 on Prodigy
Organization: Zanzor of the CLOUDS
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner

In alt.radio.scanner, aa519@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Scotty Meredith) writes:

> I can KICK myself!!  I bought my PRO-2006 at Radio Shack for $399 (full
> price).  There is a RS discounter on Prodigy that sells them for $336!!
> 
> Oh well....

Mind sharing who and what the details are?

  John (Prodigy-less and perhaps not getting any more prolific.) W

Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: linnig@m2000.dseg.ti.com (Mike Linnig)
Subject: another best radio transmissions
Organization: Texas Instruments, Defense, Systems and Electronics Group.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 21:31:04 GMT

One summer here in Texas I was working around the house listening to the
scanner in the background.

A police officer on a rural farm road reported to dispatch that he was out
investigating a parked car with one of those cardboard sunscreens that say
"NEED HELP, CALL POLICE" on one side and a cute scene on the other.

You see these sunscreens turned backwards alot in parking lots, requesting help
for no apparent reason.  Ho hum... why is he even bothering....

A few moments later the cop got on the air and reported that someone was locked
inside the trunk of the car; please send someone with tools...  It seems this
poor guy had been robbed at gunpoint and forced into his trunk.  He had been
there for two days.  This was a TEXAS SUMMER.... he was real lucky that cop
stopped to investigate... I doubt he could have lasted much longer.


--

        -- Mike

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
Mike Linnig, Texas Instruments Inc. | 97.43% of all statistics are made |
Phone: (214) 575-3597  TI MSG: BLIP | up; most of them (83.6 percent)   |
Internet: linnig@m2000.dseg.ti.com  | are wrong.                        |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: drw@esl.com (Dave Waters)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: To tattle, or not to tattle
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:42:32 GMT
Followup-To: alt.radio.scanner
Organization: ESL Inc.

In article <1dm66aINNg8d@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM>,
metalj@concerts.EBay.Sun.COM (Jerry Watson ) wrote:
> 
> If someone ever does report something they heard on a cellular, I hope
> they are punished and sued. Will show how obsurd it is to have laws
> saying you can't listen to a certain frequency. One more point. What
> if you heard the cellular on 400 MHz instead of 800?
> 
> 
> I agree, I call that INVASION OF PRIVACY!! Mind your OWN buisness
> DONT BE A SNITCH!!!!!
> 
> 	Jerry

Do you use a scanner? If so, you might modity your statement to simply
"don't be  a snitch" because most all scanner users are certainly not
minding their own business. 

Are you suggesting that reporting your awareness of criminal activity via
the cellular monitoring is different than overhearing the same via voice?
What if you were in a restaurant and overheard some planned child
molestation activity. By reporting it to authorities would that be
"snitching"? Or only if you overheard it via cellular?

Dave

                 +-------------------------+
|  | |  |  |     | Dave Waters    WA6AWZ   |
+--+-+--+--+     | drw@esl.com             |
|  |||  |  |     | Compuserve: 73277,311   |
    |            +-------------------------+
    |
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: fraser@praha.jpl.nasa.gov (Scott Fraser)
Subject: Re: To tattle, or not to tattle
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:20:27 GMT

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
>
>

I would be CAREFUL about reporting anything that you hear over cordless or cellular, while there have been very publisized cases of neighbors turning in the 'crooks' it has turned nasty with the 'crooks' sueing the neighbors, etc.  Also, here in CA, listening to cordless phones is prohibited (I'll be glad to provide the section of PC if needed) and there HAVE been cases where a neighbor went to the police with info & ended up getting hit on that count.

I would call your local PD, explain the situation, letting them know that there is dealing going on (visible signs of MANY visitors at all hours) and what do they suggest.  Add 'hypotheticly' (sp?) if it would make any difference if you had overheard a tele conversation.  But don't commit yourself to using that as the source for any arrests.  Let them get that on THEIR own.



Scott



Standard Disclaimers Apply!
From: parnass@cbnewse.cb.att.com (Bob Parnass, AJ9S)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: neighbors & scanners
Summary: unlicensed cordless phones and Sec 605
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:10:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL

In article <wb9omc.721429105@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu>,
wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes:

 > ....  Section 605 of the communications Act of 1934....
 > 	To put it simply, you can divulge things you hear on Broadcast
 > Radio (and Television, also considered a broadcast service), Amateur
 > Radio and relating to ships (and planes) in distress.  Period.  Nothing
 > else.

I am not sure that unlicensed devices like cordless phones,
200 kHz carrier current intercoms, 49 MHz wireless microphones,
or 49 MHz toy walkie talkies are protected by the secrecy laws.

I suggest you contact the FCC for their interpretation of this.
-- 
==============================================================================
Bob Parnass, AJ9S  -  AT&T Bell Labs  -  parnass@ihlpm.att.com - (708)979-5414
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,misc.legal
From: linnig@m2000.dseg.ti.com (Mike Linnig)
Subject: Easily Modified?
Organization: Texas Instruments, Defense, Systems and Electronics Group.
	<1992Nov11.063935.26162@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:34:34 GMT

The new anti-scanner law appears to make it illegal to manufacture/import a
scanner that receives or can be easily modified to receive cellular freq's.  I
believe it leaves it to the FCC to determine what "easily modified" means.

How do you folks think "easily modified" will be defined by the FCC?

Will the existing Radio Shack models be banned? 
 (cutting a diode is pretty easy)

Do you think Radio Shack will modify their design so that it fits the new FCC
rules and can still be used to pick up cellular?  For example, they reprogram
the microprocessor to lock out cellular, but a black market in clone (modified)
microprocessors develops.

What other schemes might develop to thwart this law?

o Two part scanners, each part in capable of receiving cellular but together
  they can receive cellular.

o Downconverters that move cellular to a different freq range (already
  available).  Would they be illegal under the FCC rules?

.. there, that out to be enough topics to keep the chatter going for awhile.
--

        -- Mike

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
Mike Linnig, Texas Instruments Inc. | 97.43% of all statistics are made |
Phone: (214) 575-3597  TI MSG: BLIP | up; most of them (83.6 percent)   |
Internet: linnig@m2000.dseg.ti.com  | are wrong.                        |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: kagoos@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Film Crew Freq. Wanted
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:26:56 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University


Paramount has started filming the movie "The Firm" here on campus. Does
anybody have the frequencies for film crews. If not any suggestions where I
should scan for them.


Thanks,

Suresh


___  ___  _____  ___ ___ Suresh Kagoo  EE Dept , Memphis State University
|  \/  | / ____\ | | | | Engineering 211   | Domain: KAGOOS@MEMSTVX1.MEMST.EDU
| \  / | \____ \ | |_| | Memphis, TN  38152| Bitnet: KAGOOS@MEMSTVX1
|_|\/|_| \_____/ \_____/ Ph: (901) 678-3696| AX.25 : N9GSA@W4BS.#WESTN.TN.USA

Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: johnw@bluemoon.rn.com (John L. Wilkerson Jr.)
Subject: Re: To tattle, or not to tattle
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 04:57:15 EST

ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller) writes:

> Re- Tattling
> 
> If it's serious and you want to protect your identity, go to a pay
> phone and call the anonymous tip line. Many towns have such 
> confidential means of cluing the cops in. 
> 
> Just don't do it for trivial reasons. Help the cops concentrate on
> the bad guys.
> 
> Ron
> 

 Hell, I've given the PD my name and address and told 'em I'm covering 
activity on a scanner.  This involved a robbery within 1/4 mile of my 
house.  I never saw the suspect, and they didn't catch 'im, but I was out 
there listening and watching.  
 
    I've also used my scanner, in conjunction with a CB, tracking a drunk 
driver.  Brought the PD right to him.   If more people with scanners did 
this, the cops wouldn't think scanner users were all dirtbags.
 

--
  ___                      _       _     __  _
 (   >      /            _//      ' )   /   // /
  __/______/_  ____      /         / / / o // /_  _  __  _   ________
 / /  (_) / /_/ / <_    /___ o    (_(_/ <_</_/ <_</_/ (_/_)_(_) / / <_
<_/     johnw@bluemoon.use.com     jwilkerson@delphi.com
use Delphi address or this one for now ->  johnw@bluemoon.rn.com
 
    Put /correct/ Addresses in your Sigs!  Email is hosed!
From: calley@optilink.UUCP (Chris Calley)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: To tattle, or not to tattle
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:51:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1992Nov10.082413.22409@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, by billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson):
> jfreem@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Joe Freeman) writes:
> 
> : What if they were running a crack house, molesting little kids
> : or ripping your other neighbors off?  You would be as low
> : as the people doing the deed if you didn't even anonomusly
> : help (at the least).  
> 
> If they were molesting people, or robbing people - then certainly.
> They are then harming other people. They are not doing so by running
> a crack house.
> 
I believe that you are incorrect.  Furnishing crack cocaine to someone is 
not only harming the buyer, but indirectly diminishing the quality of life
for those in that neighborhood, and for us taxpayers as a whole.  Who pays
when a crack addict ends up at the county hospital from an o.d.?  In the
long run, it's you and me in the form of ever higher health care costs and
taxes.

In one sense, when you eavesdrop on someones _private_ conversation, you
become a party to that conversation and are therefore responsible for
what you here.  If you condone the illegal actions of those you are 
eavesdropping on, by all means DON'T turn them in.  But, if you believe that
what they are doing is wrong, then be true to your convictions and report
them to whoever.  But what you should not do is hide your head in the
sand and pretend you didn't hear anything at all.  Or even worse, try to
rationalize that what they are doing is not actually harming anyone.  That
is an old argument that circumvents the real issue of right and wrong.
If you don't want to take responsibility for what you may hear, then 
don't eavesdrop on private conversations.


-- 
Christopher A. Calley - all opinions are my own... etc.
email: 	calley@optilink.com
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: ang@slate.mines.colorado.edu (The Black Prince )
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: PRO43 mods
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:08:52 GMT
Organization: Colorado School of Mines


Can somebody tell me where I can get a hold of the mods for the
PRO43 scanner so that I can get the cellular freqs and some other 
freqs that aren't supported originally.  Email me at
ANG@MINES.COLORADO.EDU.  Thanks
From: rsmartin@bl.cad.slb.com (Dick Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: PL board/mods for RS Pro20206
Date: 7 Nov 92 23:38:43 GMT
Reply-To: rsmartin@blaca1.sinet.slb.com
Distribution: na
Organization: Schlumberger CAD/CAM; Billerica, Mass. (USA)


My son has recently purchased a RS Pro2026 and wants to know if a PL 
board can be fitted into it. Either that or any mods that would accomplish
the same thing.

Please reply via e-mail to:
rsmartin@blaca1.sinet.slb.com


Thanks
   ...Dick Martin
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: jdwhite@iastate.edu (Jason White)
Subject: Re: Back to best radio transmissions
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 09:00:47 GMT

	Here at Iowa State University, the Public Safety officers do not carry
guns.  Last May, during out annual Veishea celebration, a "riot" occurred and
both the local Ames police and the Public Safety officials were going crazy.
I was monitoring the numerous "riot" related transmissions between the various
University Public safety officials when I heard the following:

Dispatch: "Anyone know where the keys to the gun cabinet are?"

Guess they were getting serious! :)

-- 
Jason White, Durham Center Operations   // Internet: jdwhite@iastate.edu
95 Durham Center, ISU                  //    Bitnet: jdwhite%iastate.edu@isumvs
Ames, Iowa  50011-2041		      // 
W:(515) 294-2256  H:(515) 232-1092   //  N0RWU, V.P. Cyclone Amateur Radio Club
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: kw2852@col.hp.com (Ken Wyatt (lmx))
Subject: Re: Pro-43 mod
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:41:34 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

<BxACL3.CtG@news.iastate.edu>



Please consider the following.

Your goal is to "right this wrong" (right?).  Damaging the radio
would serve only to punish the rightful owner (assuming it goes
back to Radio Shack).  Your fellow student has broken the law
by stealing.  Knowing this fact and not reporting this to the
authorities could be construed by the courts as aiding and
abetting (I don't really know the correct legal term).

This is really a question of ethics and the law, rather than
the technical solution you hope for.  The proper thing to do,
in my opinion, is to confront your friend and tell him you
do -not- approve of stealing, and that you will give him 24
hours to return the radio (anonymously, if desired), or you
will be forced to notify both Radio Shack, and the police.

This will allow him to reconsider his actions, get you off
the hook legelly, -and- correct the wrong done to Radio Shack.
A win-win-win situation.  Hopefully your friend will remember
this as a valuable lesson for the future.  There is nothing
more effective than peer pressure to get someone to do some-
thing, as I'm sure you are well aware.

If he fails to return it, then you -also- get off legally,
and your friend learns the lesson the hard way!

Regards...
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: harpe@netnews.louisville.edu (Mike Harpe)
Subject: Re: What's your tattle level?
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:44:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Louisville

schuch@phx.mcd.mot.com (John Schuch) writes:

>OK, now that I have been sufficiently thrashed for even contemplating
>reporting a 'cordless intercept' to the police, (I got some serious
>nasty mail), lets get to the heart of the issue.

Sorry to hear you bashed, John.  I think this is one of the better threads
we've had in a while.....

I still stick to the cynical/sarcastic viewpoint.  I really think that the
reporting of crimes is directly related to the profit level for the person
reporting the crime.  Most of the crimes on your list are felonies.  In 
Louisville, KY, there is a program called "Crimestoppers" which gives
anonymous cash rewards for arrests leading to felony Grand Jury indictments.
The person's name is never known, not even to the police.  I described the
method used to accomplish this in my last posting.  I'll provide more
detail on request.  It's better than the lottery.  You have to pay taxes on
$1000 if you win it from the Kentucky Lottery.

How does this relate to scanning?  Well, obviously, if you hear enough about
a crime to tip the police off, you can make one thousand (tax-free) dollars.
That's almost enough for that shiny new R7000 you've always wanted :-).

I'll ask my police officer friend if they have any figures on how many crimes
are solved using communications intercepts from private individuals.  The 
answers may be surprising.

People WILL rat you out for money.  The best idea is to not go around telling
everyone about your fun scanning hobby.  Keep your mouth shut and enjoy your
new R7000 in peace :-).

Mike Harpe, N4PLE
University of Louisville
From: schuch@phx.mcd.mot.com (John Schuch)
Subject: What's your tattle level?
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Tempe, Az.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:51:47 GMT

OK, now that I have been sufficiently thrashed for even contemplating
reporting a 'cordless intercept' to the police, (I got some serious
nasty mail), lets get to the heart of the issue.

I would not call the police on the guy buying two joints of marijuana.
I would, however, call on the guy arranging for a truck to pick up the
1,500 pounds of crack he just made in his garage. (hypothetical)

Most people who responded agreed with me, that there is some level of
crime that they would call the police, only that level varies for the
most part.

Which of the following would you report to the police?

Small drug buy/sell
Large drug buy/sell
Huge  drug buy/sell
Planning bank robery
Planning kidnapping
Income tax fraud
Rape
Insest
Child abuse (physical)
Child abuse (sexual)
Car theft
Residential burglary
Murder
Hit-and Run accident, no fatalities
Hit-and-Run accident, fatalities
Receiving stolen property
Welfare fraud
Insurance fraud
Confidence schemes
Child taken by non-custodial parent

More importantly, how do you define the line between what you would
report and what you would not?

John

-- 
| ONE LINE NOVEL: She backed away from the corpse slowly, not so much out  |
| of fear, but simply unsure of what the crowd expected her to do with it. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John R. Schuch  -  Motorola Computer Group  -  Manufacturing Engineering |
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: schuch@phx.mcd.mot.com (John Schuch)
Subject: To tattle, or not to tattle
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Tempe, Az.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:19:12 GMT

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


Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: kevin.jessup <kevin.jessup@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Uniden Scanner revisions/manufacture dates?
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 22:00:53 GMT

I've seen ads in the magazines for at least 3 different versions
of the Uniden 200xlt.  These are: Rev A, B and C.  What's the
diff?

Also, there is a date of manufacture code on the back of my 200xlt.
Does anyone know how to interpret the code??

BTW, the date code is "0F1B".  The serial number is 250321XX.

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

        "Friends don't let friends run DOS."
                          -- Microware
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: To tattle, or not to tattle
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:24:13 GMT

jfreem@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Joe Freeman) writes:
: >
: For a couple of joints.  Porbably not.  If the person was a regualr dealer
: maybe yes.  If it was crack , yes.

I don't see that any of these are a valid reason. Are any of the acts
endangering innocent people? I doubt it - their customers certainly 
know what they are getting.

: What if they were running a crack house, molesting little kids
: or ripping your other neighbors off?  You would be as low
: as the people doing the deed if you didn't even anonomusly
: help (at the least).  

If they were molesting people, or robbing people - then certainly.
They are then harming other people. They are not doing so by running
a crack house.

And, before you jump all over me. I would not use crack. I believe
people are stupid to do so. However, they should have the right.
Also, it is not as addictive/harmful as the PFTFA makes it out to
be. 

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: To tattle, or not to tattle
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:30:29 GMT

vbreault@rinhp750.gmr.com (Val Breault) writes:
: 
: One of the things that some folks miss from "the good old days" was
: the way that neighbors looked out for one another.  It took many forms,
: from preparing a dish for an invalid to investigating suspicious things
: while a neighbor was away.  
: 
: Somewhere among the unwritten code of the neighborhood was the the 
: responsibility to keep an eye on one another's children.  If they were
: seen doing something questionable, their parents were notified.  If it
: was something illegal, the police were notified.
: 
: The crime rate was lower then.  

One thing you left out. The people also ignored the laws that they felt
were unjustified. In other words, if their neighbors were doing something
that was not endangering others, then they kept their mouths shut.

: I believe it was for the same reason that criminals prefer to do their
: work in secret.  The certainty of detection and prosecution is the 
: single greatest deterrent to crime.  

It is no deterrent when the profits are so high. The only way to stop the
illegal traffic in drugs is to legalize them. We had ample proof of that
with prohibition. Unfortunately, the government chooses to ignore history.

: I believe that people ought to be rewarded for disclosing criminal 
: acts, whether those seen with their eyes or heard with their ears.

If they are actually harmful to others, certainly. Victimless acts should
not be illegal.

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner