HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: harpe@netnews.louisville.edu (Mike Harpe)
Subject: Re: Best of Transmissions......
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:24:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Louisville

>>They are coming up with better technology--and I can't wait to hear the
>>whining when cellular goes digital.  (Followed by heavy business in
>>descramblers, and the justification "they should have used a GOOD algorithm if
>>they'd wanted privacy...")

I agree with the specualtion about descramblers.  More and more CPU is 
becoming available in the form of DSP, etc.  It will not be long before
boxes to decode digital transmissions will be available.  The assumption
that these transmissions will also be "encrypted" is premature.  Remember,
encryption requires some responsibility for key management, etc.  Compatibility
between different cell systems needs to be maintained as well.  How does 
Cellular One exchange keys with BellSouth Mobility for each and every phone?
Scrambling I can see, encryption is a different animal.

You have to remember that a lot of "Dumb Guys" use cell phones.  You computer
support types should know that you cannot expect your favorite division head,
who is still getting comfortable with his PC power switch, to master cell
phones with encryption.  Can you imagine the calls to Customer Service?

Since this is crossposted, I have a question for the legal types.  Could a
product liability case be made if I suffer some sort of damages because my
cellular phone is monitored when the vendors insist that it's not possible?
They really do say that, at least around here.  Wanna have some fun sometime?
Walk up to a cell phone salesman and play Homer Simpson.  Ask him about the
privacy issue and post your favorite reply.  You'll be shocked by what they
tell you.

On the same theme, what do cellular service contracts actually say?  Is there
some "fine print" that essentially says "we don't actually say that your call
is private, we just make you think that, so if you get burned somehow, it's 
not our fault?"  That would seem to give some ammunition to fight an ECPA
case.  If the provider doesn't believe it himself, why should anyone else?

Food for thought, I guess.

Mike Harpe, N4PLE
University of Louisville

"Never tell a cellphone something that you wouldn't wanna hear on 'Oprah'"
					                 - Mike Harpe
From: metalj@concerts.EBay.Sun.COM (Jerry Watson )
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: To tattle, or not to tattle
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:18:38 GMT
Reply-To: metalj@concerts.EBay.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: concerts.ebay.sun.com

>>>It seems like scanning is kind of NOT minding your own buisness to
>>begin with.


	Yes, very true!! Actually this is the point
	I'm trying to DON`T BE A SNOOPY POOPY SNITCH!!! 
	If they aren't hurting you, don't bother them and
	leave thier life alone.


	Jerry
	
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,misc.forsale,wi.forsale,rec.radio.shortwave
From: kevin.jessup <kevin.jessup@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: FOR SALE: Uniden BC100xlt scanner/radio, $130.00
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 16:33:42 GMT

It's been sold!
-- 
Kevin Jessup, kevin.jessup@mixcom.mixcom.com

        "Friends don't let friends run DOS."
                          -- Microware
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: "david toste" <david.toste@canrem.com>
Subject: best of scanning
Reply-To: "david toste" <david.toste@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: alt
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:34:28 EST


Ok here is my story:
I heard this on the C-Phones(800Mhz)
From what I can understand was this guy was driving around look for this
girl, so this is what sort of happened.

Phone rings,

Gal: John I need help, I don't know where I am, I feel like I've been
     druged up, I'm so weak.
Guy: Where the HELL are you? I've been looking for you all over the
     place.
Gal: I was at a bar and was picked up by this guy, we went for a drive,
     and, that's all I can remember, it's dark and can't see anything. I
     think I've been rapped.

This is where the guy starts to really flip.

Guy: What do you mean you think you've been raped!

Phone is disconnected.

Started to scan agian and heard a phone start to ring agian, this is
about 10 mins later.

Guy: (Same one) What's going on!
Gal: I'm getting sleepy, I can't stay awake, I don't know where I am.
Guy: What phone number does the phone have.
Gal: I can't see it's to dark.
Guy: F**K try, try to get the number.
Gal: I think someone is coming.
Guy: Hide, get out of there, where are you, what's the number, what can
     you heard.
Gal: I can see, a 3.....6.....2....9......Oh my god someone's
     coming...CLICK....!!

That's all I heard..!

---
  OLX 2.1 TD  The cow ate bluegrass and mooed indigo.....
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: jimbo@socrates.umd.edu (Jim Bogard)
Subject: scanner info requested
Organization: University of Maryland University College
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:00:56 GMT

ok, let's see:

1.  Does anybody know if the Realistic scanners in the Shack 1993 catalog
    are modifiable? (handhelds) PRO-43,39,35,36,42,41?  There are no mods
    for them on garfield, I checked.  Have they already killed the       
    modability for the scanner bill?  I'll be getting one soon, but I'll
    be getting an  old one used if this is the case. :-) 
2.  You may have noticed my post earlier wondering if the owner of 
    garfield pulls off all the mods from this group.  I got no answers.
    Ah well.  So if you have a mod that isn't on garfield.catt.ncsu.edu,
    please upload it! (/pub/alt.radio.scanner/MODS)
3.  Got bored and tried to mod my ancient pro-31 last night.  No luck.
    course, it may not even be possible, I don't have a catalog from that
    era around, do I don't know if there's a similar model which would
    indicate mine having features jumpered out.  I guess I could just
    double the microproc xtal and shift everything up by a factor of 2...
    would this work?  (top freq now is 512 MHz)

J-.

-- 
----
Jim Bogard  (jimbo@socrates.umd.edu)
                                            "Implement now, tweak later."
Tech at large
From: drw@esl.com (Dave Waters)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: To tattle, or not to tattle
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:48:49 GMT
Followup-To: alt.radio.scanner
Organization: ESL Inc.

In article <VBREAULT.92Nov10154222@rinhp750.gmr.com>,
vbreault@rinhp750.gmr.com (Val Breault) wrote:

><<stuff deleted>>
> 
> Some people feel that if a law is not a "good" law (in their mind)
> then it does not need to be obeyed.  I guess that's why some folks 
> drive faster than the speed limits. 
> 

Aside from good vs. bad, there is the issue of interpretation. As has been
discussed here, just what the ECPA means is definitely up for
interpretation. Much of how people adhere to the laws is their
"understanding" of what it means. Many interviews with criminals reveal
that they a) think they are dead right and are not breaking a law that is
very plain to you and I, or b) they are simply unaware that there was a law
against whatever they were apprehended for.

> 
> <<more stuff deleted>>
>
> How's that.... and I'm not even a scanner enthusiast...

Not bad! Actually, I think you illustrate that this whole topic is not
about scanning, but about laws, politics, opinions, and even morals.

> 
> -val-
> --
> 
> Val Breault - GM Research - vbreault@gmr.com - N8OEF
> Instrumentation dept., 30500 Mound Rd., Warren, MI 48090-9055
> The opinions expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect 
> those of GMR or those of the General Motors Corporation.
>  

Dave
                 +-------------------------+
|  | |  |  |     | Dave Waters    WA6AWZ   |
+--+-+--+--+     | drw@esl.com             |
|  |||  |  |     | Compuserve: 73277,311   |
    |            +-------------------------+
    |
From: kevin.jessup <kevin.jessup@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: Best of Transmissions......
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:53:49 GMT

In <1992Nov10.211449.2469@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fraser@praha.jpl.nasa.gov (Scott Fraser) writes:

>CA PC 632.5 Intercepting or Receiving Cellular Radio Telephone Communication

>(a) Every person who, maliciously and without the consent of all parties to the
                                   ^^^
>communication, intercepts, receives, or assists in intercepting or receiving a 
>communication transmitted between cellular radio telephones or between any 
>cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone shall be punished...

Note the use of the term AND rather than OR!  Can I assume lawyers understand
the meaning of AND vs OR?  If it truly IS an AND, how do you define malicious??
It would appear that the casual listener is NOT in violation of the law,
right?  

Assuming I do like listening in on such conversatios, is simple
curiosity a malicious act? (Assuming of course that I do not pass the info
on to anyone else or use it for my personal gain or against those whose
conversation I heard.) 

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

        "Friends don't let friends run DOS."
                          -- Microware
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: abhawryl@acs.ucalgary.ca (Alan Blake Hawrylyshen)
Subject: WANTED: Info on  Pro-32 Mods
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 20:29:52 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta
Keywords: 800 mods scanner


Howdy,
   I have been using my Pro-32 for several years now and am quite
happy with the unit.  It has been mentioned to me that there are mods
to extend the reception range into the 800 Mhz bands, thus the 
inevitable:

If you have a copy of these mods, could you mail them my way?


BTW-> My unit is Ser. No. 541324 DOC No B8837.
Thanks,
	...Alan

--

	
-- 
alan@cpsc.ucalgary.ca		University of Calgary
abhawryl@acs.ucalgary.ca	Dept. of Computer Science
"Free the heel, free the mind."

Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: weinstoc@sei.cmu.edu (Chuck Weinstock)
Subject: Re: Amtrak
Organization: The Software Engineering Institute
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:03:13 GMT


In article <1992Nov1.213208.1@oread.cc.ukans.edu>, crand@oread.cc.ukans.edu writes:
|> Hello, I am going to be taking the train from Omaha, Nebraska to Denver,
|> Colorado over Thanksgiving.  I would like to take my scanner with me.  I 
|> would like to find out what frequencies Amtrak (& its operators) use for this
|> part of the route.
|>  
|> Chris
|> CRAND@OREAD.CC.UKANS.EDU
|> 

The California Zephyr runs over the tracks of the Burlington Northern.  If
memory serves me their main channel is 161.100 (my complete railroad frequency
list is at home).

In general, railroads can be heard between 160.185 (AAR Channel 5) and 161.565
(AAR Channel 97), with channels in between increasing at .015.



Chuck Weinstock				weinstock@sei.cmu.edu
Software Engineering Institute		(412) 268-7719
Carnegie Mellon University		(412) 268-5758 (Fax)
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: eskin@btree.uucp (Michael Eskin)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 18:20:59 GMT
Organization: Brooktree Corporation
Subject: Signal acquisition using frequency counters?
Distribution: na

Reading through the ads in Popular Communications and Monitoring Times I
get the impression that I should be able to use one of the
Optoelectronics frequency counters for getting the frequency of close
transmitters.  I am curious to know if it actually works, and what sort
of real-world distances I should expect. I already have an AOR1000XLT so
such a device would make a nice add-on.

I tried one of the Startek counters and had miserable results. Perhaps I
had a defective unit...


-- 

Michael Eskin                                   Voice: (619) 535-3476
Brooktree Corporation                            UUCP: ...!ucsd!btree!eskin
9950 Barnes Canyon Rd                             CIS: 76376,541
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: I got it. I like it! BC200XLT
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:34:17 GMT
Organization: University of Kentucky, USA. -5 GMT

Well, thanks to all who sent me info/reviews etc on the BC200XLT.
I got it 3 days ago and have been wearing it out ever since!
I don't know how I survived without the "search" feature! My old scanner
(Cobra SR-10) didn't have this feature.
Needless to say, being able to program 200 channels into the scanner
is a BIG plus (compared to 10 on the Cobra).
My only regrets are the lack of a tape out jack, and not being able to 
recieve the 200 Mhz band. Oh well,,, maybe I'll buy another scanner soon
(seeing as how they will be changing soon).
On a side note, better buy semi-auto firearms, and high capacity
magazines soon! Now that Clinton is in, its only a matter of time before
they are banned too.
From: rusty@krishna.cs.umd.edu (Rusty Haddock)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless phone privacy.
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:06:37 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
In-reply-to: cfm1471@usl.edu's message of 9 Nov 92 19:56:14 GMT

cfm1471@usl.edu (Morrison Charles F) writes:
   kevin.jessup <kevin.jessup@mixcom.mixcom.com> writes:
   >Just repeating a sig that I saw on the net recently (probably in
   >alt.radio.scanner).  Not sure if I got it exactly right...
   >
   >      "Any radio waves you choose to send through my body are
   >         for me to use as I see fit!"
   >
   >I kind of liked that one.  Any other opinions?
   >
   Amen!
   Dont use a cordless, unless you wanta be heard!!!

Let's amend that to say "don't mind or care if you're overhead."
I generally don't *WANT* people to listen in on my conversations
but if I absolutely don't want them to be heard I use the traditional
landline.

Just picking nits... :-)

	-Rusty-
--
Rusty Haddock / Computer Science Dept	DOMAIN:	rusty@mimsy.cs.umd.edu
University of Maryland			PATH:	{uunet,rutgers}!mimsy!rusty
    If someone points a quad-vectored, hyper-thermic, cosmo blaster
       at you it's a safe bet that you're about to become toast.
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: johnw@bluemoon.rn.com (John L. Wilkerson Jr.)
Subject: Re: ** THE FUTURE OF SCANNING? **
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 04:49:05 EST

paul@hsh.com writes:

> 
> It's already happening.  In my town -- a relatively small town, in north NJ -
> - the police scramble their conversations on what they cryptically (get it?) 
> call "Channel Two."  I have been debating opening up this can of worms at a 
> Town Council meeting, to find out their justification.  I have little hope of
> getting them to stop it, never mind that it's a public agency using public 
> airwaves (oh, don't get me started).  About 1/4 of all transmissions are
> scrambled -- and it's hardly a National Security situation, in such a small
> place.  Gets one to wondering what kind of stuff they *really* discuss? 
> 
 
      Do they actually encrypt their traffic, to make monitoring useless? 
or do they just go to channel 2 where they think scanner users can't find 
'em.
 
     Locally The PD for my suburb has a "channel 4"  They discuss 
matters not usaually covered on the main channel, such as lunch breaks, or 
joking around.  Where I used to live, another suburb, they used this 
channel to talk privately, and once discussed a person they were watching 
who had a scanner.  Typically these channels do not go thru a repeater 
system.  They are car-to-car direct.  This reduces range, but still /can/ 
be intercepted by a scanner..... 
 

--
  ___                      _       _     __  _
 (   >      /            _//      ' )   /   // /
  __/______/_  ____      /         / / / 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!
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Subject: Re: Post-scanner-ban service?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:08:37 GMT

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

>Regarding the cellular scanner ban (the law was signed by BUSH and
>will become law in six months, right?)...
>I understand that manufacturers can build cellular capable receivers
>for the next six months and then sell their existing stock.
>Will I still be able to get my cellular capable (800 MHz even if not
>modified to receive cellular) scanner serviced and returned to me
>when it dies long after the scanner ban is in effect?  Or will
>the law forbid servicing of cellular capable receivers manufactured
>before the ban took effect??

	As I read the text of the thing, there was nothing about
servicing of existing equipment.  Now, what service depots may wish
to do is another story.....

Duane
From: randall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Michael Randall)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: BUGS
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:18:14 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle

In article <1dm44bINNg40@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM>, metalj@concerts.EBay.Sun.COM (Jerry Watson ) writes:
> 
> What do scanners go for, and are they able to pick up bugs.
> 
> 
> 	Please let me know.
> 	Thx
> 	Jerry

Scanners range in price from around $69-$599 depending on features. They are
not good for *detecting* bugs, but if you know the frequency, they can "pick
up" bugs. There are bug detection devices on sale commercially however (such
as squeeler<sp?>) and range in price from around $250- ?$2000? Bug Detectors
can be hand-held (for sweeping a room) or breifcase mounted, as well as
types which connect to your phone to detect any direct monitoring etc. For
more info, check the back pages of Electronics magazines, there are usually
some listings there. There is a company in Kirkland, WA called Fox's Spy
Shop, or something similar, that sells all the above I'm sure, although I've
never been there. I do want to drop in some time out of curiosity, to see
what kinds of stuff they sell. Personally, I would like to have a scanner to
listen to the Fire Dept and Police in my area, to know what excitement is
happening in the area, and when to expect a call (I'm a volunteer
Firefighter). My HAM Radio will receive the Washington State Patrol, and I
sometimes listen as I'm commuting. I've heard calls about accidents on the
freeway and taken alternate routes just in time, and heard of accidents
shortly after I've passed an area too. It can be interesting.
-- 
  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: vbreault@rinhp750.gmr.com (Val Breault)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: To tattle, or not to tattle
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:42:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: General Motors Research Labs
In-reply-to: calley@optilink.UUCP's message of 11 Nov 92 21:51:00 GMT

In article <13159@optilink.UUCP> calley@optilink.UUCP (Chris Calley) writes:

   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.

Good point Chris.  I like that part about being a party to the 
conversation and the responsibility it entails.  If someone's not 
prepared to deal with the responsibility then they probably ought 
not to be listening in the first place.  

That puts it in the same context as if one heard the conversation 
first hand, face-to-face.

An interesting viewpoint indeed......

-val-
--

Val Breault - GM Research - vbreault@gmr.com - N8OEF
Instrumentation dept., 30500 Mound Rd., Warren, MI 48090-9055
The opinions expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect 
those of GMR or those of the General Motors Corporation.
 

Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: johnw@bluemoon.rn.com (John L. Wilkerson Jr.)
Subject: Re: What's your tattle level?
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 05:00:38 EST

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

> 
> Which of the following would you report to the police?
> 
 
    The following I /would/ report:
 
> Large drug buy/sell
> Huge  drug buy/sell
> Planning bank robery
> Planning kidnapping
> Rape
> Insest
> Child abuse (physical)
> Child abuse (sexual)
> Car theft
> Residential burglary
> Murder
> Hit-and-Run accident, fatalities
> 
> More importantly, how do you define the line between what you would
> report and what you would not?
> 

 
      Most of the ones I omitted were ones that involved other agencies, 
which would become bogged due to red tape.
    The ones listed I'd report all involve damage to persons and/or 
property.   The Drug deals would potentially harm people.   Another one to 
add or actually several....
 
Drunk Drivers
Theft in progress (Petty theft or Grand theft)
Domestic Violence
 

--
  ___                      _       _     __  _
 (   >      /            _//      ' )   /   // /
  __/______/_  ____      /         / / / 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!
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Vtech 900dx Cordless Freqs.
From: jherndo@eis.calstate.edu (John Herndon)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:19:35 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

If you dont already know.. this cordless phone uses the 900Mhz range for
transmit/receive on base/handset communications.  The frequency range is
as follows:

Transmit Frequencies:

	Handset 925.5 - 927.4 Mhz
	Base	905.6 - 907.5 Mhz  (All 20 Channels Found In This Range)

Receive Frequencies:

	Handset 905.6 - 907.5 Mhz
	Base	925.5 - 927.4 Mhz  (All 20 Channels ")


So, here is the basis of the new possible cordless frontier. 900 Mhz.

	==] John Herndon / JHerndo@eis.calstate.edu [==

Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
From: clark@angelo.amd.com (Brad D. Clark)
Subject: Re: Amtrak
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 01:14:40 GMT

Try scanning from 160 to 165.995 MHz. I don't have the particulars
right off-hand re:freqs. Maybe you might want to check and post
this on rec.railroad... they's bound to be someone there w/freqs.

Brad
From: cfm1471@usl.edu (Morrison Charles F)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless phone privacy.
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:56:14 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

In article <1992Nov07.190443.2820@mixcom.com> kevin.jessup <kevin.jessup@mixcom.mixcom.com> writes:
>Just repeating a sig that I saw on the net recently (probably in
>alt.radio.scanner).  Not sure if I got it exactly right...
>
>      "Any radio waves you choose to send through my body are
>         for me to use as I see fit!"
>
>I kind of liked that one.  Any other opinions?
>
Amen!
Dont use a cordless, unless you wanta be heard!!!
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner