• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

The Expanded AM Band

Some years ago a high school girl was on her cordless phone talking to another high school friend. She said she was going to smoke some weed and go to bed. Meanwhile a cop was driving around town listening to cordless phones. He thought he had probable cause, so he raided her parents home and arrested her in the night.

However, a lawyer from the FCC said the police had violated the US Code and charges were dropped.
 
frankberry said:
It's a Part 15 device. There is NO expectation of privacy. Stop this argument.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my question. Somehow I doubt the parents Continuous Wave was listening into knew what Part 15 is, let alone that someone was being voyeuristic by listening into their private home.
But that's okay Frank, it's your board. If you think it's okay to enable that sort of behavior based on some Commission rule, then we agree to disagree.
 
Kelly A said:
You didn't answer my question. Somehow I doubt the parents Continuous Wave was listening into knew what Part 15 is, let alone that someone was being voyeuristic by listening into their private home.
But that's okay Frank, it's your board. If you think it's okay to enable that sort of behavior based on some Commission rule, then we agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Stop this nonsense.
 
Kelly A said:
Seriously? You listening into someone's home is by definition eavesdropping on their privacy. Let alone listening to what's going on in a child's bedroom. If you were the parent of that kid, I'll bet you would be really pissed.
Just the fact you don't see anything wrong with it, speaks volumes. Goes to character.
From a legal perspective; see my replay above showing how you would be violating The Wiretap Act.
Click to expand...
Have you watched Dateline lately? They are able to access every move a person makes by "pings" off cell towers, and in many cases, exact geographic coordinates. They are tracking everybody, not just criminals. It's only revealed when legally necessary, but who knows who might hack access to it or use it illegally?
 
Schroedingers Cat said:
Have you watched Dateline lately? They are able to access every move a person makes by "pings" off cell towers, and in many cases, exact geographic coordinates.
Click to expand...
Who is "they"? Of course law enforcement is able to monitor your phone calls, listen to voicemails, monitor text messages, but with a judge's consent (warrant). Some radio nerd with a scanner or service monitor being entertained by scanning frequencies in the neighborhood, isn't the same thing.
Schroedingers Cat said:
They are tracking everybody, not just criminals. It's only revealed when legally necessary, but who knows who might hack access to it or use it illegally?
Click to expand...
That is a common belief by various conspiracy theories, but not reality. In the U.S., you need a court issued warrant to monitor phone conversations. Some social media sites have monitoring in their terms of service that most people probably don't pay attention-to when signing up. Again, I was talking about someone who was entertained by listening into what goes on in someone's home. In my view, they are at a minimum, violating a stranger's personal privacy.
 
A person is naive if they believe that this information is not hacked and abused by others who don't have proper authorization. The information is already there. In the old days, people who had a friend in law enforcement could get access to the license plate database, and use it to get phone numbers for whatever reason, at best, tracking down prospective dates, at worst, a hit man tracking down addresses to murder someone. It goes downhill from there.
 
Schroedingers Cat said:
A person is naive if they believe that this information is not hacked and abused by others who don't have proper authorization. The information is already there. In the old days, people who had a friend in law enforcement could get access to the license plate database, and use it to get phone numbers for whatever reason, at best, tracking down prospective dates, at worst, a hit man tracking down addresses to murder someone. It goes downhill from there.
Click to expand...
So, are you saying it's perfectly justified to listen into a neighbor's home, just because you might have the resources to do so? And without consent? Trying to understand your points of 'moral equivalence'.
 
The worries over Part 15 devices and privacy is moot these days, as transmission technology has advanced to the point where one would need advanced technical knowledge and go to extreme measures in order to listen in. Digital transmission, possibly incorporating spread spectrum, makes that task difficult, and equipment for many of the frequency bands involved is hard to obtain.

I also think that in the “old days” there was less expectation and consciousness of the concept of privacy. After all, people sent postcards through the mail and talked on party line phones. Anyone with half a brain knew not to divulge “anything you wouldn’t want someone else to read or hear.”

Here’s an example: Years ago passenger ships had “ship to shore” telephones that those on board could use to call someone on land. These used HF to cover the long distances involved, which means anyone with a shortwave radio, perhaps anywhere in the world, could listen in. There was no expectation of privacy. You knew not to discuss anything you didn’t want repeated.
 
Missed my point completely, Kelly. Just saying it's a slippery slope, and there's nothing new under the sun. New technology has its dangers, and they are abused by hackers and authorities.
 
Schroedingers Cat said:
Missed my point completely, Kelly. Just saying it's a slippery slope, and there's nothing new under the sun. New technology has its dangers, and they are abused by hackers and authorities.
Click to expand...
I understood your point. Mine was about Continuous Wave's comments about how entertaining it was to listen into a neighbor's baby monitor. Granted, baby monitors are no longer open to your average nerd with a scanner, but they were concerned why I thought listening into a private residence without the parents knowing was "creepy". Sure, I could have used other terms like: voyeuristic, intrusive, or inappropriate. Creepy just came to mind.
 
I bought one of those cheap transceivers at a ham fest. It can transmit on frequencies a licensed ham is not allowed to use.

Hacking into someone's Wi-Fi security system is not that hard either. Don't put those cams on the internet when you're at home.

Break in with audio and freak out a child or mom and we're talking about a crime.
 
Now back to the expanded AM band. The first stations I heard there were pirates. Jolly Roger Radio 1610 KHz from Bloomington Indiana. Pirate Radio Central from Monticello Maine. Radio New York International off the coast of NYC.

Then I remember when the licensed station came on from New Jersey.
 
I've yet to hear an HAR or TIS station on the X-band using the so-called DX 'equipment' here. Half the ones along, for example, I-81 with the blue highway signs up nearer Scranton/Wiles-Barre come in for a while. One even had overnight temperatures -- for the night before. Solid Gold Weather.
Loudest X-bander here at night is CHHA from (?) Toronto on 1610.
I did hear a Talking House station on 1610 while driving through Pottsville. And I'm counting it on the log totals.
But no TIS/HAR stations.
* * * * * *
Back by us in Queens NYC there was a JFK Airport LLC station -- Lost Luggage Co-Op / Parking Region Dispatch station -- but at the OTHER end of the dial -- at 530. That we counted, figuring that it was okayed for licensing by the FAA.
 
Probably because CHHA is in the way on 1610. I love listening to distant TIS/HAR stations - but I haven't gotten too lucky yet as 530 has a semi-local TIS and 1610 is a local TIS. I've logged Oregon DOT coast NOAA relays on 1650/1660 before. Others in the Pacific NW have heard Caltrans and various Montana TIS stations on 1610 at night.
 
Lately I've been hearing mostly TIS's on some X-band frequencies because the DX to other states is so poor. The Issaquah and Vashon TIS's get out fairly well (1700 & 1650 respectively). KFSG 1690 from Sacramento comes in with a variety of stuff at night, and the 1640s out of Portland and the Bay Area get out well (regional Mexican and religion). Then you've got KBRE Merced with rock -- they're feeding a translator.

When X-Band prop is good I've heard NOAA TIS's from the northern and Central Oregon Coast here in the Seattle metro.

In my view the X-band was a great idea, but it was introduced maybe 2 decades too late to really be effective, at least in the US.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom