the Gingrich Interception

the Gingrich Interception

Post by PHI » Sun, 12 Jan 1997 04:00:00

                First of all, SHAME on the Democrat Congessman from No.
Florida !!!
                Second, you all know that he was being followed by
the Democrat Rat Pack --of David Bonoir and his cronies.  !!

                Third, WHERE IS JANET RENO IN THIS ???????

        I want to see her find the Scanner person who taped this, and,
the No Florida Democrat Congressmen who gave it to the DNC, and,
I HOPES SHE PROSECUTES THEM.........

                                                         am

 
 
 

the Gingrich Interception

Post by Glen L. Rober » Sun, 12 Jan 1997 04:00:00


Did you hear Rush Limbaugh make an ass of himself talking about
how hard it would be to make such an interception?

Should how much the powers that be in Congress understand
technology!


>                First of all, SHAME on the Democrat Congessman from No.
>Florida !!!
>                Second, you all know that he was being followed by
>the Democrat Rat Pack --of David Bonoir and his cronies.  !!
>                Third, WHERE IS JANET RENO IN THIS ???????
>        I want to see her find the Scanner person who taped this, and,
>the No Florida Democrat Congressmen who gave it to the DNC, and,
>I HOPES SHE PROSECUTES THEM.........
>                                                         am

The Stalker's Home Page -- What the hell? Are you listed? Privacy?
http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~glr/stalk.html
Tech Support Hell Hole: http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~glr/hellhole.html
 
 
 

the Gingrich Interception

Post by MN Mani » Sun, 12 Jan 1997 04:00:00

Quote:>Did you hear Rush Limbaugh make an ass of himself talking about
>how hard it would be to make such an interception?

Uh huh.  As a huge Rush fan and supporter, it was painful!  I tried to
call in and corrrect him, but the possibility of getting in (especially on
a Friday) is next to zero.

-Drew in Sunny Central Florida-
 WOTS/AM-1220/Orlando
 'All 70s All Day'
 KF4DDM On the Ham Bands

 
 
 

the Gingrich Interception

Post by Mike Sugimo » Sun, 12 Jan 1997 04:00:00

: Consider that we're asked to believe that it was a scanner enthusiast, in
: Florida, who just happened to come across this call, *and* have a recorder
: going at the moment.  

I want to know how someone in Florida picked up a celltel conversation
from DC. Granted, if someone locally was using the celltel, then it might
make some sense, but from what I understood it was Gingrich doing the
transmission.

Anyone want to clear this up for me?

: Does this make me an official *** theorist?

No, it makes you a reasonably intelligent person who likes to poke holes
in news stories. :)

---
mike sugimoto  gat/md/t/s, dreamer, shaper, singer, maker

"to cure sometimes, to relieve often, to comfort always."

 
 
 

the Gingrich Interception

Post by Bill Higdo » Sun, 12 Jan 1997 04:00:00



> : Did you hear Rush Limbaugh make an ass of himself talking about
> : how hard it would be to make such an interception?

> Didn't hear RL, but I'd agree as much as disagree.
> Consider that we're asked to believe that it was a scanner enthusiast, in
> Florida, who just happened to come across this call, *and* have a recorder
> going at the moment.  Really, even when listening was legal, how often
> would there be anything worth taping if one wasn't looking for something
> in particular?  It's not as though one would want a record to help in
> writing out a QSL request.

> I'd be willing to bet a $1 or 2 that if the truth be known there was
> probably no scanner and, if there were, *certainly* no recreational
> scanning involved.  One doesn't have to be paranoid to imagine a
> situation where someone tapes the conversion off a wire, sends it to the
> press, and trys to pin the blame on a bunch of hobbyists that don't have
> much political clout.

> Does this make me an official *** theorist?

I don't think it's a ***..........It's a bunch of maggot
politicians doing what they do best, digging up dirt on each other.
 
 
 

the Gingrich Interception

Post by Jerry Dall » Sun, 12 Jan 1997 04:00:00


: Did you hear Rush Limbaugh make an ass of himself talking about
: how hard it would be to make such an interception?

Didn't hear RL, but I'd agree as much as disagree.  
Consider that we're asked to believe that it was a scanner enthusiast, in
Florida, who just happened to come across this call, *and* have a recorder
going at the moment.  Really, even when listening was legal, how often
would there be anything worth taping if one wasn't looking for something
in particular?  It's not as though one would want a record to help in
writing out a QSL request.

I'd be willing to bet a $1 or 2 that if the truth be known there was
probably no scanner and, if there were, *certainly* no recreational
scanning involved.  One doesn't have to be paranoid to imagine a
situation where someone tapes the conversion off a wire, sends it to the
press, and trys to pin the blame on a bunch of hobbyists that don't have
much political clout.

Does this make me an official *** theorist?

 
 
 

the Gingrich Interception

Post by Reverend Twe » Sun, 12 Jan 1997 04:00:00


Quote:>Did you hear Rush Limbaugh make an ass of himself talking about
>how hard it would be to make such an interception?

>Should how much the powers that be in Congress understand
>technology!

I didn't hear Rush, but from what I've read, it sounds like he was doing
nothing other than re-reading the AP report....  What I want to know, is
WHEN did it become illegal to modify a scanner to receive cellular?  

That bit of legal wisdom courtesy of the AP article.  The AP article
also hinted that ANY receiver capable of receiving cellular was illegal
to manufacture... I thought that it had to be capable of scanning before
the cell ban covered it.  

Was that you Glenn, or perhaps it was Bob Parness (or maybe someone else)
who years ago proved to a media type that all you needed to receive cellular
calls was a pre-1985 b/w vhf/uhf TV with manual tuning?  Seems it's time
again for a little show like this...  possibly haul the reporter type around
to Salvation Army, St Vincent De Paul, and other thrift shops and demonstrate
on the sets for sale, just so the reporter doesn't get the idea the set might
have been modified for such a demo.

 
 
 

the Gingrich Interception

Post by Jerry Dall » Mon, 13 Jan 1997 04:00:00

: I want to know how someone in Florida picked up a celltel conversation
: from DC. Granted, if someone locally was using the celltel, then it might
: make some sense, but from what I understood it was Gingrich doing the
: transmission.

I'm assuming that one of the many people taking part in the conference
call was in the same cell as our Florida couple, whether that was in
Florida or DC only they can say.  The couple involved has been described
as "a Florida couple" but the reports so far are unclear about whether
they were in Florida when the tape was made.

 
 
 

the Gingrich Interception

Post by Paul Gro » Mon, 13 Jan 1997 04:00:00

On 11 Jan 1997 23:34:32 -0800,
in the newsgroup rec.radio.scanner,

from Our Lady of Perpetual Freedom thoughtfully posted:


> >Did you hear Rush Limbaugh make an ass of himself talking about
> >how hard it would be to make such an interception?

> >Should how much the powers that be in Congress understand
> >technology!

Gasp! Like the "V" chip and the Internet? ..Naw....

Quote:> I didn't hear Rush, but from what I've read, it sounds like he was doing
> nothing other than re-reading the AP report....  What I want to know, is
> WHEN did it become illegal to modify a scanner to receive cellular?  

> That bit of legal wisdom courtesy of the AP article.  The AP article
> also hinted that ANY receiver capable of receiving cellular was illegal
> to manufacture... I thought that it had to be capable of scanning before
> the cell ban covered it.  

> Was that you Glenn, or perhaps it was Bob Parness (or maybe someone else)
> who years ago proved to a media type that all you needed to receive cellular
> calls was a pre-1985 b/w vhf/uhf TV with manual tuning?

Uh, Oh...Don't tell them that! Or they will make it "illegal" to
tune any "pre-`85" set above channel 69!

Has anyone checked into seeing if he was using a *digital* (TDMA)
cell phone at the time???

Those are a *little* harder to receive with a scanner. ;^)

Cheers,
Paul Grohe

---------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul Grohe                     National Semiconductor Corp.
 Sr. Electronics Technician     2900 Semiconductor Drive
 I-Sig New Products Eng Group   Mail Stop C2693

 (408) 721-7389 Tel             (408) 721-2513 Fax

                 http://www.national.com

   For technical assistance, literature, or samples call:
       NORTH AMERICA                        EUROPE
       (800) 272-9959               +49 (0) 180-532 78 32

 Usenet Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed are mine, not NSC's

 PLEASE! NO Solicitors/Junkmail/Pyramid/Chain/MLM/Headhunters!
---------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

the Gingrich Interception

Post by Bud Jamis » Mon, 13 Jan 1997 04:00:00

P> I HOPES SHE PROSECUTES THEM.........

Fat chance.

... Forfeit:  (n) What most animals stand on.

 
 
 

the Gingrich Interception

Post by Glen L. Rober » Mon, 13 Jan 1997 04:00:00


>On 11 Jan 1997 23:34:32 -0800,
>in the newsgroup rec.radio.scanner,

>from Our Lady of Perpetual Freedom thoughtfully posted:

>> >Did you hear Rush Limbaugh make an ass of himself talking about
>> >how hard it would be to make such an interception?

>> >Should how much the powers that be in Congress understand
>> >technology!
>Gasp! Like the "V" chip and the Internet? ..Naw....
>> I didn't hear Rush, but from what I've read, it sounds like he was doing
>> nothing other than re-reading the AP report....  What I want to know, is
>> WHEN did it become illegal to modify a scanner to receive cellular?  

When I heard Rush he was explaining how police scanners are use
to listen to police and fire calls and that NOW... some scanners
can pick up cellular phones... but that it is not common.

Quote:

>> That bit of legal wisdom courtesy of the AP article.  The AP article
>> also hinted that ANY receiver capable of receiving cellular was illegal
>> to manufacture... I thought that it had to be capable of scanning before
>> the cell ban covered it.

Any manfacutured after a certain date... The real illegalness is
in intending to pick up the phone calls... the equipment is
easily available, legally (specially cell phone interception
systems, where you put in a phone number is probably a different
matter... see: http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~glr/harris.html)

Quote:

>> Was that you Glenn, or perhaps it was Bob Parness (or maybe someone else)
>> who years ago proved to a media type that all you needed to receive cellular
>> calls was a pre-1985 b/w vhf/uhf TV with manual tuning?

An old Emerson 4" color TV did it...

Quote:>Uh, Oh...Don't tell them that! Or they will make it "illegal" to
>tune any "pre-`85" set above channel 69!

The cheap analog tuners, not the ones with clicks seemed to be
capable. Some require a video signal to demodulate the audio,

Quote:>Has anyone checked into seeing if he was using a *digital* (TDMA)
>cell phone at the time???

Did anyone ask Harris Corporation for their list of Triggerfish
customers?

Quote:>Those are a *little* harder to receive with a scanner. ;^)
>Cheers,
>Paul Grohe

The Stalker's Home Page -- What the hell? Are you listed? Privacy?
http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~glr/stalk.html
Tech Support Hell Hole: http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~glr/hellhole.html
 
 
 

the Gingrich Interception

Post by Eugene Enge » Mon, 13 Jan 1997 04:00:00



> : Did you hear Rush Limbaugh make an ass of himself talking about
> : how hard it would be to make such an interception?

> Didn't hear RL, but I'd agree as much as disagree.  
> Consider that we're asked to believe that it was a scanner enthusiast, in
> Florida, who just happened to come across this call, *and* have a recorder
> going at the moment.  Really, even when listening was legal, how often
> would there be anything worth taping if one wasn't looking for something
> in particular?  It's not as though one would want a record to help in
> writing out a QSL request.

> I'd be willing to bet a $1 or 2 that if the truth be known there was
> probably no scanner and, if there were, *certainly* no recreational
> scanning involved.  One doesn't have to be paranoid to imagine a
> situation where someone tapes the conversion off a wire, sends it to the
> press, and trys to pin the blame on a bunch of hobbyists that don't have
> much political clout.

> Does this make me an official *** theorist?

Well I think you may have something there. While listening to the Cell
freq. I would have had a problem getting a recorder hooked up in time to
get anything of intrest. This sounds to me like some profesional was
stand by ready to record anything that was going to be said on that
phone, but they found that they could blame the hobbyists and get away
with it. RS and all the other blowhards will milk this for all it's worth.
I think the New York paper that published the story should be
blamed for printing the story. The Meida is always getting the Cart before
the horse. Look what happened with the Dallas Cowboys players.

- Show quoted text -

 
 
 

the Gingrich Interception

Post by D Sta » Tue, 14 Jan 1997 04:00:00




>> What I want to know, is
>> WHEN did it become illegal to modify a scanner to receive cellular?  

>A couple of years ago. I remember thinking that it was a bury-your-head-
>in-the-sand way of "fixing" the problem, because only a technological
>nincompoop didn't know their cell phone was a radio station on batteries.

No, no, no.  More misinformation.  Listen closely - IT IS NOT ILLEGAL
TO MODIFY A SCANNER TO RECEIVE CELLULAR CALLS.  It IS illegal to USE A
SCANNER TO RECEIVE CELLULAR CALLS.  It is also illegal to manufacture,
import or sell a scanner manufactured after April, 1994 that is EASILY
MODIFIED TO RECEIVE CELLULAR CALLS (in the USA).

Big difference.  Well, no, not really a big difference in actual fact,
but a big difference in the way the law is written.  :-)

73 de Dave, NF2G

 
 
 

the Gingrich Interception

Post by Reverend Twe » Tue, 14 Jan 1997 04:00:00



>>> That bit of legal wisdom courtesy of the AP article.  The AP article
>>> also hinted that ANY receiver capable of receiving cellular was illegal
>>> to manufacture... I thought that it had to be capable of scanning before
>>> the cell ban covered it.

>Any manfacutured after a certain date... The real illegalness is
>in intending to pick up the phone calls...

Any "Scanner" manufactured after a certain date.  The article stated
any "receiver".  The definition of a "scanner" in that section of
law makes a distinct difference between a receiver not capable of
scanning, and one which is capable of scanning.

It is not illegal, AFAIK, unless they added a new law, to manufacture
a non-scanning receiver capable of receiving the cellular frequencies.

Quote:>The cheap analog tuners, not the ones with clicks seemed to be
>capable. Some require a video signal to demodulate the audio,

The ones with clicks work fine too.  You just need to use the fine tuning
control, which isn't that fine... it covers up to two channels on each side.
 
 
 

the Gingrich Interception

Post by Giovanni » Tue, 14 Jan 1997 04:00:00



>> Consider that we're asked to believe that it was a scanner enthusiast,
>> in Florida, who just happened to come across this call, *and* have
>> a recorder going at the moment.  
> I want to know how someone in Florida picked up a celltel conversation
> from DC. Granted, if someone locally was using the celltel, then it might
> make some sense, but from what I understood it was Gingrich doing the
> transmission.

One end was in DC.  Where was the other end?  If it was in the town
where the scanners or tappers were, then it's plausible.
jgo