From: "M. Davis" <clean9933@hotmail.com>
Subject: SK Bill Cheek (1950-2000)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:39:13 GMT
Radio Scanning Engineer and contributor
to the hobby, Bill Cheek, has passed away.
http://www.monitoringtimes.com/mtappeal.html
Our condolences to his family, his friends and associates.
His kind mannerism and technical savvy will
truly be be missed.
Hey Bill! What freq's does St Peter
use at the Pearly Gates ? - thanks Bill we miss ya!)
San Diego Reader story #1
San Diego Reader story #2
Federal
investigators said Knipschild used an illegal electronic device
to intercept police communications. In a related case, the Secret
Service have arrested a San Diego couple, Bill and Cindy Cheek,
on a New York warrant charging they sold such illegal devices on
the Internet to intercept police communications. The Secret
Service said one of its undercover agents purchased a device from
the Cheeks, who shipped it to New York.
Letter #1 from Bill Cheek
To my friends, associates, and well-wishers:
Please forgive this
form-response. So much e-mail has poured in that I can't possibly
answer it all. I think it's better to offer
some kind of an explanation than to just
keep silent. You are receiving a "blind carbon copy" so
that no one knows who is on
my mail list.
Since our case is
pending and there are any number of possible outcomes, I think it
best for now to stick to the facts. Here they
are:
At about 7:00am on
Wednesday, March 31, 1999, Cindy and I were enjoying our first
cup of coffee of the day when there came
a loud banging on the door. We supposed
it to be an early morning overnight FedX or UPS delivery, so I
answered the door.
A badge was shoved in
my face with the announcement that there was a warrant for
Cindy's and my arrests, and for a search of
the premises. I stepped back and a dozen
(or so) armed agents from the US Secret Service, FBI, Customs,
Postal Inspectors,
and even a local cop or two charged in.
I was handcuffed and
put on the couch. Cindy groggily wandered into the area wondering
what the commotion was all about, and
was handcuffed.
I have to leave out a
lot of details for the sake of time and brevity, but the next two
hours were a typical TV-style search &
seizure situation. Then we were hauled
off to be fingerprinted and jailed.
That afternoon we were
hauled into US District Court; given public defenders; and
released on bail. We didn't actually get out
of the slammer until about 9:30pm that
evening. We have to appear back in court on April 13 for an
"identity" and "removal"
hearing.
We got home to find ten computers disconnected and gone; along with most of our business records; and a host of other stuff.
The worst could be yet to come......
Our arrest warrant was
issued by a US Magistrate judge in Brooklyn, New York. The
warrant specifically addresses a simple
"data slicer", to wit (exact
quote - misspellings are theirs; not mine):
US Code Title 18, Sec 2512(1)(a) and 371
=====================================================
"conspiring
to send in intrestate commerce devices
having
reason to know that the design of such device
renders it
primarily useful for the purpose of the
surreptitious interception of electronic communications,
to wit:
Mobile Data Terminal information broadcast by
law
enforcement agencies and emergency service
organizations"
I will leave it to you
to interpret those charges, but as written, I can't imagine why
companies like Optoelectronics and MFJ
Enterprises weren't raided, too. They
and dozens of others sell the same "device".
In any event, the
matter worsens. Since the warrant was issued by a judge in the
Eastern District, Cindy and I apparently have
to be tried there. It doesn't matter
that we can't afford to travel to and fro, coast-to-coast; and
that we have no peers in New York
(I've never set foot in the state of New
York and have no peers there.....)
The fact is....we'll
have to go to New York for the indictment hearing and for the
trial, should it go that far. That's the bleak
side of it; that coupled with the fact
that we can't afford the travel nor to hire competent attorneys
who are skilled in electronic
communications law.
On the lighter side:
over the days since our arrest, all of our computers have been
returned to us, along with copies of most of
our business records. We should get 90%
of everything back by this coming week.
I know almost nothing
else at this point; at least nothing else that I am free to
discuss. I can say that Cindy and I did not
knowingly break any laws...and at this
stage, I'm not sure that we unknowingly broke any, either. At
best, I think "they got the
wrong man (and woman)", and at
worst, they got a very tiny fish in a great big puddle.
I appreciate all the
offers of help, though I can't suggest where help is needed most
yet. I guess if the case goes to trial, it would
be most helpful to have attorneys who
are skilled in communications law. But that is far out of our
reach and unless our
financial picture changes, we'll have to
accept the services of New York public defenders.
Knowing that, if you
know any attorneys who might be interested in this case, I guess
we'd appreciate your mentioning it to
them. Frankly, Cindy and I are rather
demoralized and beaten down by this massive disruption in our
lives, and it's probable
that we don't know the best course of
action to take.
Therefore, your
suggestions and referral of our plight to others who might be
qualified to know what's best, will certainly be
appreciated by us.
I'll let you know more as we know more, if you remain interested. Thanks for your care and concern thus far.
Kindest regards,
Bill & Cindy Cheek
bcheek@comtronics.net
ccheek@comtronics.net
Letter #2 from Bill Cheek
To my friends, associates, and well-wishers:
Again, this is a form
letter because it isn't possible for me to personally reply to
every e-mail right now. I DO READ EACH
ONE, however!
The flood of support
is, to put it mildly, overwhelming. At the very least, I owe you
an update of the facts of the case as
developments evolve.
If you do not want to receive these periodic infograms, let me know and I'll remove your address from my mail list.
Yesterday, Cindy and I had a hearing before a US Magistrate in District Court. Basically very little happened.
We got a continuance
of the formal "identity" and "removal"
hearing until May 18. We petitioned the judge to expand the
limits of our "bail" bond to
allow us to travel for business purposes.
There was no
opposition from the US attorney (a good sign?) so the judge
signed the order. At least we are free to make a
living, such as it is......
So far, so good. On
May 18, if nothing happens between now and then, Cindy and I will
return to court where the case will
almost certainly be remanded back to New
York.
Between now and then,
it is probable that we will have to travel to New York to meet
with the US attorney. There is, however, a
chance that the New York US attorney
will come out here to San Diego to interview us, instead. THAT
would be great, but
nothing is certain at this time.
There has been a
literal flood of heart-warming support from out and around the
world! Not just moral support....but loads of
great suggestions, cool information,
referrals, and advice. I am going to act or follow-up on a lot of
it, believe me.
One powerful
admonition from many sources is that we will be dumb to reply on
public defenders to handle our case.
Unilaterally, we are told to retain an
expert attorney, even if it means going into hock. I guess I can
agree, except I don't know
how to extract blood from turnips and/or
turn lead into gold.
A solid defense will require $100,000 or so. We can't swing it. Two words: IM POSSIBLE.
So....our only hopes for expert counsel are: (1) pro-bono, or (2) a fund raiser.
Lots of donations have
been offered, but I don't think that's the way to approach it....
it would take a hell of a lot of
administration to manage thousands of $5
and $10 donations, assuming that many are possible.
A "Pro-bono"
lawyer remains a viable prospect since the things Cindy and I are
charged with loom as a major impact to the
entire realm of radio. While she and I
are the current "victims" of the government's charges,
the bigger picture victimizes all
of Hobby Radio, and perhaps other areas
of radio and electronic communications as well.
Therefore, a "pro-bono"
lawyer or a professional fund raising effort appear to be the
best. I will explore these soon, but I still
need outside input and direction because
I'm kind of inept on the legal and funding scenes.
The kicker right now
is that I can't devote much attention to either of these issues
because of a major computer consulting
project that will take me away from home
and office for the next seven days. Talk about a rock and a hard
spot.
A man's got to make a
living...but as he works his butt off, there's no time to devote
to saving his skin. I will, however, be able to
give more attention to our plight after
April 20.
Please don't give up on me if you don't hear from me before then. And you probably won't....
Again, I can't give
much in the way of inside information because it is so volatile
to the case. I will say that our hopes remain
high for a dropping of the charges.
Sources tell me that Cindy and I aren't WHO they thought we were,
and that the "evidence"
is not at all what they thought would be
found.
This is why I am not
talking to the media yet. If this matter is mostly a mistake by
the New York federal judicial system, I sure
as heck don't want to aggravate them by
saying any more than necessary.
One more thing to add.....nine
of our ten seized computers have been returned, along with copies
of most of our business
records. The Secret Service still holds
one old laptop computer, all of our floppy disks; a PRO-2006
scanner, and a
miscellaneous hodgepodge of circuits,
publications, records, and such. I figure it rather remarkable
that we've gotten back so
much as it is. This alone may suggest
something about the case.
Who ever heard of
seized property being returned within days? (I've never know it
to happen, anyway.) Does this mean
something favorable to our case?
I don't know. But I'll
say more in due time. For now, I will be out of touch for a week
or so. Please don't look ill upon me if I
don't reply in the interim.
Heartfelt thanks and appreciation to all!
Bill & Cindy Cheek
(Working stiffs)
bcheek@comtronics.net
ccheek@comtronics.net
Letter #3 from Bill Cheek
To our friends, associates, and well-wishers:
I don't have much to
report since the last update sent out on 4/14/99. I just got back
from an extended business trip (thank the
deities the Court allowed me to travel.)
About all I know thus far is:
1.Our
court-appointed public defenders are fairly worthless. They know
we will get NEW public defenders when we have
to go to
New York, so they're not interested in doing any more than
necessary here in San Diego. Apparently the
government
won't pay their travel and accommodation expenses.....
As a result, we have to play "musical attorneys".
2.Apparently
we have to "volunteer" to travel to New York at our own
expense for a "questioning" session by the District
Attorneys
there. A date hasn't been set yet, but I am told it will be
before May 18, when our next hearing in San Diego is
scheduled.
If we don't volunteer to travel for this non-legal event, I am
told we'll just be handcuffed and dragged up there for
arraignment and probably jailed until the trial. I may have
overstated this a little, but apparently a good faith effort on
our part
will go a long way to establishing our credibility and community
standing. Soooo, we volunteer, I guess.
Thanks to all those
who have offered referrals, advice, and tips. For Pete's Sake,
we've even been offered accommodations in or
near Brooklyn where we'll have to first
go for the questioning. I don't know that we'll be able to take
advantage of that
yet.....locations/travel/etc possibly
being obstacles....
I would appreciate
continued tips and clues on CHEAP lodging and air travel to
Brooklyn, and as usual, any referrals and tips
on communications attorneys who might be
willing to work "pro bono" for a greater Cause.
At the very least, it
would be nice if Cindy and I could be represented by competent
counsel at the coming "questioning"
session.... but so far, I'm clueless on
how to proceed..... and can't afford the heavy hitters anyway.
I think that's our
primary need - good counsel. Now that I'm home from the business
trip, I'll be dedicating some time to
digging one up. But I clueless when it
comes to attorneys - never needed one before......and dang sorry
for needing one now.
More later as developments happen.
THANKS to all!
Bill & Cindy Cheek
bcheek@comtronics.net
ccheek@comtronics.net
An appeal to Monitoring Times readers and friends of Bill Cheek:
Bill Cheek, editor of the "Experimenters
Workshop" column in Monitoring Times and author of a series
of books on scanner
modifications was just diagnosed with
incurable lung cancer at the end of September. If treatment is
not begun aggressively and
rapidly, doctors give him about 3-4
months.
Bill says, "research
on lung cancers is ever on-going ... My doctor said that even a
year ago, my case would not have been
treatable at all. Now they can offer me
a 4-6 months extension." The problem is, Bill does not have
medical insurance. He is
self-employed at Comtronics and has two
daughters in college. Furthermore, charges brought against him in
a New York federal
court last spring -- related to his
scanner business -- are currently being heard before the Grand
Jury.
Bill intends to fight
the cancer, but he could use your help. Bill welcomes your
prayers on behalf of him and his family. If you
have knowledge or feedback on the latest
cancer research and developments, Bill would appreciate hearing
from you.
Expressions of concern are welcome, but
he'll have little energy for personal replies.
You can also help with
your contributions. A trust fund has been set up by friends and
family to which you may contribute
toward medical expenses. Here are the
details:
Contributions for Bill
Cheek can be made through Union Bank of CA. Checks can be made
out to either:
> Bill or Cindy Cheek
> Cynthia Cheek trustee for William D.
Cheek, Sr.
Funds should be sent to:
Union Bank of
California
Acct# 0771354719
8359 Mira Mesa Blvd
San Diego, CA 92126
Attn: Rhonda or Kevin Smith (619) 230-3800
OR
Bill and Cindy Cheek
PO Box 262478
San Diego, CA 92196
Though
always a controversial figure, there is no disputing the fact
that Bill has devoted his life to the love of radio and
technology. We at Monitoring Times ask
that you give this appeal the widest circulation among your radio
friends. As fellow
hobbyists, let's show our appreciation
by giving generously.
Comments from Newsgroups
Subject: Re: Police Data bursts...can you read
them?
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:28:47 GMT
From: sparky@sparkytown.com (Sparky)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.scanner
No, it is not ILLEGAL to decode MDT in the US. It is sent
unencrypted
over the airwaves and is part and parcel of Public Service
Transmissions (aka the police work for us, the taxpayers).
What is illegal is to make what you hear (or see in this case) on
a
scanner public.
In Bill Cheek's case he was unfairly prosecuted under the made-up
legal process of vicarious liability. Someone in New York took
one of
his data slicer kits and then used it to decode MDT. The problem
is
that this person also posted several day's reception of MDT to a
web
site - which does violate the wording of the Federal
Communications
Act of 1939.
Some Judge in NY got a bug up his butt that somehow enabling
technology is also illegal and issued an arrest warrant for Bill
Cheek. The judge was and is wrong. A data slicer has many uses,
and it's the person who uses it for good or bad who should be
blamed... A data slicer is nothing but a bunch of components that
can
be bought for 9 bucks at Radio Shack...
This is akin to someone using a Camaro as a getaway car in a bank
robbery and then holding the Chevy Dealer and General Motors
responsible for the bank robbery. How about telephone scams where
people use the phone to commit felonies? Do we arrest the
executives
of the phone company? Do we arrest the maker of the telephones
involved? Why not? The crime could not be committed if the phones
didn't exist. Same case where some cities tried to sue gun
manufacturers for the resulting Gun violence. Sheesh!
The easiest way to decode MDT is to use WinMDT, as it requires no
outboard hardware, other than a scanner with a baseband
(discriminator) tap and the ability to receive in the 800 Mhz
band.
The decoding is done by a computer's soundcard.
So decode away. But don't blab what you see around town or post
it to
the internet (which is illegal). And don't do something stupid
like
show your mobile MDT decoder (in your car) to the local blue
meanies
(That's the police, for you kids out there).
73,
Sparky
Subject: Re: Police Data bursts...can you read
them?
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 00:12:13 GMT
From: Peter Maus <PeterMaus@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.scanner
Which brings me to the real point of having posted the law as I
did. IF you read the words, and if you read the exemptions
carefully, you begin to see conflicts in the text. What is not
permitted often conflicts with the text of what is exempted.
We're
not talking about Shakespeare, here, this is not poetry. This is
text of law. Legal text is specific till it draws blood, and
ambiguities are not part of that program. Any yet, reading
clearly
and understanding the specifics taking the law in it's totality,
you
read that it's not permitted to intercept any oral or electronic
communication, except as noted, and the notations are broad and
often vague.
Further, it's pretty clear that the thrust of this law is aimed
at
Cell spectra and little else. And yet, Bill Cheek was prosecuted
for
selling devices that specifically permit MDT decoding, as well as
a
host of other and LEGAL uses.
Which brings me to my point. The purpose of the law is not
sufficiently clear. Language of the law, as written, permits
selective prosecution, and conviction, with punishment to be
meted
out, or not, by, as you so very correctly pointed out, a court
test. Indicating that the law was writted to ameliorate the
concerns of CTIA, based on grossly misunderstood technology,
while
seeming to open the door for prosecution of those who would
monitor
and use the technology for criminal intent.
This is pretty much the definition of a 'feel good' law. A token
act, based on misrepresentation and fear mongering, with
sufficient
ambiguities that the real legislation is to take place from the
bench, not the halls of Congress. It lets Congress off the hook
for
the ignorance, and the curtailment of perceived civil rights, and
it
allows judicial activism to sort out the results of their
spinelessness.
And, as in most such cases, only the law abiding are penalized.
(Let's not forget that the major revision of the law was in
response to one of their own getting caught with his mouth open.)
Which then raised the question why was Bill Cheek arrested?
Under the specifics of the law, what he did was questionable at
best under the darkest possible circumstances. Under the
specifics
of the law, what he did was perfectly legal in the realm of sale
of
legally used and applied devices.
However, his vocal and often strident insistence in circumventing
the intent of the law protecting the interests of CTIA was very
difficult to ignore. Note that he was prosecuted for selling data
slicers used for decoding MDT, not his publication of cell
modifications for receivers blocked to cell spectra. Neither of
which, btw, are specifically illegal as the law is written. But
they
are in conflict with FCC regulations, which are not codified into
the existing law.
The law was used to selectively prosecute him, in error, by the
way, waiting for the courts to sort out the arguments on either
side, and legislate a clear path for the direction of this law
and
it's enforcement.
That Congress should pass such a law raises the questions about
whether they either know and understand how the law works, or
their
education is as bad in civics as the rest of the current crop of
graduates. In either case, it is the courts who make sense of
laws
that are both poorly written and ambiguously presented. The
result
is that there is no specific protection of any right or activity
from baseless prosecution and conviction.
And that's how law works in this country today. It's not as
simple
as a traffic ticket, where you break a known law, you receive a
clear punishment. Today, it's not clear what exactly the law is.
And
Law Enforcement is more about 'sending messages' than it is about
enforcement of existing law. With the result that the punishment
becomes not what's meted out at the end of prosecution, but the
prosecution itself, and the fact that even if the defendent is
innocent, the prosecution never ends, until either the
government,
or the defendent is drained of all resources. Or dies.
And still there is no clear definition of legal and illegal
activity for the citizen to accurately meter his behaviour by.
Meaning with little recourse or protection, one can be targeted
for
prosecution under a law that does not specifically proscribe a
behaviour for which one is being prosecuted. Literally,
prosecuted
to death.
How are such persons targeted? Pretty clear, they attract
attention to their behaviours, and become the focus of public
attention. Usually through media hammering of misinformation.
Bill
Cheek's arrest coincidently followed a huge national media blitz
at
both the network and the local level about scanner use, and
criminal
abuse, with the thrust of the stories almost unanimously being
that
only the criminal has, or uses a scanner. So, attention focussed
on
everything said by anyone about the topic.
Make no mistake these newsgroups are read, monitored and absorbed
by both media muckrakers looking for their next big social
injustice
story, and the government. And the open discourse here expressing
contempt for law, the outrage of regulation and the vocal
statement
of intent to monitor, specifically cell spectra but more
generally
'private' communications in general, attract the kind of
attention
and prosecutorial lightning that struck Bill Cheek, and that the
ambiguities of the law, coupled with the massive distribution of
gross misinformation, permit.
And still there are more laws coming. Billy Tauzin will not rest
until we are limited to nothing but domestic broadcast in this
country. Why? Because so many have brought to his attention the
open
discourse about what is monitored, and what WILL BE monitored.
And
because commercial interests demand more of these feel good laws.
So what does this mean in practical terms?
Simple...when they wantcha, they gotcha. Baseless or not, they'll
drain you to bankruptcy to make their point. And there's not a
trial
lawyer in the world who won't let them. Ask any trial lawyer what
you can do to protect yourself, and he'll say, "Well, you'll
spend a
little money to protect your civil rights." What he doesn't
tell you
is that even if you don't have the money, he's already spent it,
and
that the one who determines how much YOU spend is the guy on the
OTHER side.
Further, they decide if they wantcha by the amount of time you
spend publicly telling the world that you intend to continue
doing
what the law is unclear about, but the FCC has said you can't do.
So in very real terms, you may be right: It may not be illegal to
monitor MDT. But that doesn't mean they can't prosecute you for
it.
They can.
Make no mistake. They can prosecute you for it. It may not stand
up in court....but by the time you're bankrupt, what difference
does
that really make?
Realistically, he only way to protect yourself while continuing
to
enjoy the hobbycraft that you love so much, is spend a little
less
time shouting from the rooftops that they can't stop you.
You don't have to go underground, into hiding or live in the
shadows. You only have to be more discreet.
Because even if it's perfectly legal...they can still prosecute
you to death.
And the law is written just ambiguously enough, to permit that.
Subject: Re: Police Data bursts...can you read
them?
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 00:50:10 GMT
From: sparky@sparkytown.com (Sparky)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.scanner
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 00:12:13 GMT, Peter Maus
<PeterMaus@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Because even if it's perfectly legal...they can still
prosecute
>you to death.
>
> And the law is written just ambiguously enough, to permit
that.
Agreed. But what is the best course of action. Roll over and play
dead? Allow more and more liberties to be chipped away?
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security
will not
have, nor do they deserve, either one. - Thomas Jefferson
Sparky
Subject: Bill Cheek
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 03:05:05 GMT
From: "Jeffery A. Swan" <scientist@engineer.com>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.scanner
Please forgive my ignorance. Even though
I have been an RF engineer for
many years, an avid scanning hobbyist, and own all of Mr. Cheeks
books I
just recently became aware of his situation with our federal
government
(OK so I'm kind of an introvert). After reading all of the
information
I could find on the web and past news group postings I am quite
decidedly Pi**ed off. The good, bad, and ugly have all been
hashed out
here in the postings and I do not wish to relive that. What
I am
interested in is our freedom as citizens of the United States.
I find it quite ironic that that even
though our tax dollars fund the
FCC, a federal organization that is appointed NOT elected and is
only
answerable to the president of the United States, governs our
rights as
citizens. They govern what we can and can not listen to on
the
airwaves, what we can and can not send on the airwaves, and sell
sections of the airwaves to the highest bidders. Now do not
get me
wrong, I truly believe that we need a set of checks and balances
on
something as powerful as that portion of the electromagnetic
spectrum
upon which we send and receive information. However, I
would like to be
able to elect the officials that do such governing. I will
now step
down from my soap box and continue on with my intended post.
Knowledge is power and the only way to maintain
our rights is to have
this knowledge. I have worked for many of the "big"
companies that
produce RF equipment including or own DOD. Currently I own
a small
engineering company which employs some of the best people I have
ever
worked with and we have come to agree upon a course of action.
Over the
next few months (and probably indefinitely) we will be
instituting a web
site with any and all information dealing with the reception of,
conversion of, and monitoring of our RF airwaves. We will
have links to
overseas software sites, PCB negatives for etching boards, and as
much
tutorial information as you, the american citizen can ask for...
all
free to those who wish to read it. In the next couple of
days I will
publish our new web address. We would at this time like to
solicit any
questions you may have and even a possible name for the site.
Quite
simply we want this to be the largest, single source of free
information
anywhere.
I apologize for the length of this message but
we wanted to get this out
to all of you. And of course as always, the flame-throwers
in the crowd
may now light their torches.
Kindest Regards,
The entire staff of
Spectrum Engineering Technologies
From: bounce-rf-baker@redriverok.com.mil.gov
(Bert)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Bill Cheek
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 22:51:03 GMT
The big question in my mind is not of Bill's
guilt or innocence, but who
owns the public airwaves? Bill's right to do as he did
should never been
questioned. I don't understand why there hasn't been an
outcry from the
public over this.
In the U.S. what the average person was allowed
to listen to was anything
he desired. This was considered a basic right of being a
citizen. This
was true until recent technologies fostered by commercial
interests came on
the scene. Access to radio spectrum and other personal
freedoms have been
eroding away to Industry and Government ever since.
People buying the new Cell Phones(including
congressmen, etc) were lied to
by the Cell Phone Industry. The industry seeing laws had to
be changed for
continued growth begin a campaign of lobbying(pocket stuffing) in
Washington unconcerned about the countries citizens personal
freedoms, but
only profits. Now the industry could say 'see this law,
it's now illegal
for anyone to listen to your conversation just as it is for the
phone in
your home'. This seems to have started the ball rolling in
stealing away
the publics rights to radio spectrum AND the publics rights to
privacy.
The radio spectrum is ever since being sliced
away from our access. Look
at what's been happening to the Amateur radio and other bands.
The FCC
under instruction of Congress auctions portions off to commercial
interests
like THEY own them! Police agencies now don't want the
public to be able
to monitor them, an important check is removed from the publics
hands. Are
the police a secret society or a public agency? In some
aspects, it's now
illegal to even TALK about cell phones! There's now talk of
banning
scanner radio's that can tune to police and other government
frequencies
all together.
Those elected to represent us,(our basic rights
and freedoms) have sold us
away to the greed of industry and power monger agencies in
government.
What we as a people here in the U.S. are ALLOWED to OWN and USE
is ever
shrinking away to the hands of Government and Industry as they
take more
and more control over our personal freedoms.
Something I thought I would never see in
America.... just as in Nazi
Germany of WWII, it's now illegal for a U.S. Citizen(but not the
Government) to own some radios and to listen to certain
transmissions.
There are laws under consideration right now that will allow
Government
agencies even more probing into our PRIVATE affairs.
Look at recent attempts at tracking OUR
personal banking habits by the
Banking Industry, attempts at tracking OUR personal online
movements by a
CPU maker, by a big OS/software company. If not for a few
non-profit
watchdog agencies they would have gotten away with it. How
many more slip
by undetected? Unless you live permanently in the wild like
a stone age
man, more and more commercial and government interests are
tracking your
every move, delving ever deeper into and controlling your private
life.
What's happened to Bill Cheek(one of the
greatest innovators in hobby radio
listening) ought to be a wake-up call.
Big Brother, was it just an entertaining tail,
or a prophesy coming to life
before our very eyes?
Regards, 73, Bert. OK, U.S.A.
Author: JTWard01 <jtward01@aol.com.nospam>
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Bill Cheek
Date: 1999/08/22
In all the discussion pro or con about
Bill Cheek, one little problem has been overlooked.
That is the government's apparent decision to consider MDT
communications protected simply
by virture of their being digitally transmitted. Not
digitally encrypted, mind you, but plain old
ASCII digital. His arrest marked the first time I'd
ever heard of the government taking that
position, yet I can find nothing in the law that
specifically prohibits monitoring MDT
communications.
If the government's postion is allowed to prevail - that
all digital communications are
protected - then you can kiss goodbye any hope of ever
having a scanner to monitor public
safety voice communications that are digitally modulated.
For all of Bill's faults and virtures (which have been
debated here ad nauseum) his case has
implications that may affect many of us in the future.
John T. Ward
Brandon, Florida
USA
From: "Zombie Wolf" <zmbwf@somtel.com>
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Why is Cheeks in the Pokey?
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 17:03:52 -0400
Well. I think that they are not about to leave
us alone. Like I said, this
whole thing is really not about a piece of equipment that is
legal anyway.
this entire thing is the Government "testing the waters",
so to speak, just
to see what the people will put up with, in the way of their
right to know
what their Government, the police, and various other agencies are
doing,
being trampled upon. They want to see just what they can get away
with.
Think about it. Why Bill Cheek ? It is obvious.
He is far more visible and
vocal on the subject than any of use are. He is a tremendous
source of
information and knowledge about scanners and scanning in general.
He has a
web site , and he has written several tomes on the subject, which
are
considered "Bibles" on the subject. To their minds, he
must be silenced. The
flow of information must be stemmed, before they can have their
little
"secret police state". Nobody on this planet is
more paranoid than the
government.
Have we seen the goverment "decide"
that something is ilegal before, without
any written law to back them up ? I don`t remember such an
instance. How
can someone be charged with a crime, when there is no written law
that
states it IS a crime ? Remember, Bill did not post the MDT
transcripts on
HIS web site. Bill did not decode those transmissions. it is
currently NOT a
crime to sell 4 - level FSK decoders.(Or two - level decoders,
either).
Texas Two - Way is STILL selling them, and nobody has "charged"
them with a
crime !
The charge and specification says that he is
charged with selling a "Data
Slicer", a device that has a primary use of decoding MDT
tranmissions. There
are other "primary uses" for a data slicer, as
Optoelectronics will tell you
right in their advertising, when describing the Optocom, a radio
that
recently won type acceptance from their OWN FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, and was approved for sale, right here in the
USA !
Now, I am going to say it again, before 19 more
people start screaming "But
this is all about the 4 - level slicer he was selling, not a 2 -
level" !
The charges state clearly:"A Data Slicer". They do NOT
say "A 4 - Level Data
Slicer", nor do they say " A 2 - Level Data Slicer".
They say, "A Data
Slicer".
How can this be ? HOW can the government
prosecute this case, when it is NOT
ILLEGAL TO SELL OR OWN A DATA SLICER, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ?
How is it, that is suddenly becomes a crime, if
I mention that they COULD be
used to illegally decode MDT transmissions ? ESPECIALLY if I
inform you that
it is ILLEGAL TO DO SO ?
From: malexder@aol.com (MAlexder)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Letter from Bill Cheek
Date: 14 Apr 1999 13:23:46 GMT
>From: "Phil Smalley" <ziggy7445@yahoo.com
>If Bill's
>computers and records were considered evidence, he wouldn't
get them back
>until after the trial.
That's exactly the point. Copying the drive and
then returning it to Bill
would not be sufficient "evidence."
Any reasonable lawyer would quickly argue that
the copy was incomplete or
tampered with in some other way.
>This means one of two things: Either the
case against the Cheeks is
hopeless
>due to insufficient evidence (which, by reading the warrant
text as it was
>posted, I doubt) or this whole thing is a witch hunt and the
gathering of
>"evidence" was simply a formality
You could also speculate that they are using
the tactic to get him to stop
without ever really intending to go to trial. By simply starting
a
prosecution, many accused peoplewould quickly back down because
the financial burden of
a defense would be too great to resist.
In the Craig Neidorf case (who published
supposed proprietary documents in
an hacker newsletter), the government dropped the case midway
through the
trial. Neidorf, however, was stuck with $100,000 in legal bills.
From: "Phil Smalley" <ziggy7445@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Letter from Bill Cheek
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:17:35 -0700
LF686 wrote in message <19990413172148.13863.00000145@ng-fa1.aol.com>...
>Hi Dave,
>
>You mention a "copy by regular means" however I
would have to believe that
the secret service and FBI have access to equipment and methods
to make a bit
by bit image of any drive.
>
Regardless though, for Bill to receive his computer equipment and
records
back so quickly is unusual. I friend of mine is still waiting to
receive his
stolen computer back after it was recovered almost two years ago.
This is
because the computer is still evidence in the burglary case. If
Bill's
computers and records were considered evidence, he wouldn't get
them back
until after the trial.
This means one of two things: Either the case
against the Cheeks is hopeless
due to insufficient evidence (which, by reading the warrant text
as it was
posted, I doubt) or this whole thing is a witch hunt and the
gathering of
"evidence" was simply a formality. There's no way to
know until the trial
happens. Bill was supposed to be arraigned today, so maybe we'll
hear back
from him an a couple of days.
Speaking of that warrant text, did that bother
anyone else the same way it
bothered me? Here it is again:
US Code Title 18, Sec 2512(1)(a) and 371
=====================================================
"conspiring to send in intrestate commerce devices
having reason to know that the design of such device
renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the
surreptitious interception of electronic communications,
to wit: Mobile Data Terminal information broadcast by
law enforcement agencies and emergency service
organizations"
Couldn't a radio scanner itself be classified
under this wording? After all,
its' primary purpose is for the "surreptitious interception
of electronic
communications" too, isn't it?
And again, there are other companies who sell
decoder circuits. Would the
same have happened if Knipschild used the MFJ or Opto units
instead? Does
the CEO of GM get subpoenaed everytime there is a drunk driving
accident
involving a GM product? What happened to the responsibility of
ones actions
being solely his/her own?
I think there's more to this whole thing. It's
almost as if this entire
hobby is being singled out and eliminated, systematically out of
fear of the
fact that we know too much. I may be paranoid (and after what has
happened
in the last thirty days, I'd be a fool if I wasn't) but that's
how I see it.
You may be asking yourself "Why
would the government have a cow over
someone posting MDT data on the web?" Those of us who have
monitored such
systems know the answer. Because these agencies have been duped
into
believing these channels are secure from snoopy scanner
listeners, they
treat them like landlines and they put info up there that you
wouldn't
believe. I've seen messages that would cause a national scandal
in short
order, and we'll just leave it at that. Most agencies don't mind
a casual
monitor here or there because they know we'll generally keep it
to
ourselves. But then, when some fool puts that data on the web for
all
(including idiot criminals who otherwise would never see such a
thing in
their lives) to read, ohhh boy.....
Recently, when I posted a message about a
local agencies' MDT system, I got
a nice little "we're watching YOU too" kind of message.
When I confronted
the author on it (I guarantee he did NOT expect that!) he denied
any implied
threats or legal actions, but I know to this day that message was
meant to
shut me up. This is the mentality Bill is up against now. Those
MDT's are
damn near sacred in the eyes of their users and the law be damned
when it
comes to protecting their precious little toys. Reminds me of
ANOTHER very
popular communications device that people don't like to have
monitored....sound familiar??? ;-)
I see bad things coming on the horizon for
people like us. Bad, bad
things...
-Phil
From: jtward01@aol.com.nospam (JTWard01)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.scanner
Subject: Cheek arrest details
Date: 9 Apr 1999 01:50:43 GMT
All,
I spoke with Agent
Denise Gibson with the U.S. Secret Service today.
Agent Gibson is the media contact for the USSS's New York office.
She didn't have
many details, but the affadavit on which the arrest warrant was
based said
that Bill & Cindy Cheek had violated the law by marketing a
device, specifically
a digital data decoder, that could be used to illegally intercept
police MDT
transmissions.
Sorry, I don't have more info than that,
and I know it still leaves a
lot of unanswered questions. Agent Gibson promised to
confer with the lead
agent on the case and get back to me tomorrow with more
specifics, or to have that
agent call me directly. When I know more, I will post more.
John T. Ward
Brandon, Florida
USA
"If voting really mattered Congress would make it illegal."
From: "James" <James@swbell.net>
Subject: Re: Letter from Bill Cheek
Newsgroups: rec.radio.scanner
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:13:18 GMT
The Computer Forensics Dept of the State of
Kansas now uses programs such
as Drive Image Pro and other forensic programs to take a complete
image of
a hard drive. These programs record the entire drive bit by
bit. That
image is acceptable in court just as is a photo from any crime
scene.
From: jtward01@aol.com.nospam (JTWard01)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Bill Cheek Defense
Date: 9 Apr 1999 00:21:03 GMT
>what i fear is that the big companies can
buy legislation through lobbying
>(ala cell fones aren't radios ?) and out law otherwise legal
>devices, instead of going after the illegal users.
Hmmm. Maybe we can get the feds to arrest
the CEOs of the cellphone
companies everytime a drug dealer uses a wireless phone to make a
deal? Sounds good
to me. "Tom Wheeler, we're from the government and we're
here to help you."
John T. Ward
Brandon, Florida
USA
"If voting really mattered Congress would make it illegal."
From: jtward01@aol.com.nospam (JTWard01)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Bill Cheek Defense
Date: 11 Apr 1999 20:41:58 GMT
>From: petermaus@aol.com (Peter Maus)
>Date: 04-11-1999 15:05 EST
>
>.but the City of Chicago is suing gun manufacturers
>for street violence
There is a difference
here. Now, I'm not arguing pro or con, the
argument against the handgun manufacturers is that they produce a
product that is
inherently dangerous, even when used as designed.
The data slicer has valid legal uses (one
of which, I believe, is MDT
decoding, but obviously other opinions vary) yet they went after
Cheek
because a customer could use it illegally. A more direct
comparison than the gun
manufacturers would be the auto industry. Arresting Cheek
because of what a
customer might/or did do with one of his decoders is like
arresting the
local car dealer because a customer bought a car, then drove
while intoxicated.
John T. Ward
Brandon, Florida
USA
"If voting really mattered Congress would make it illegal."
Re: Bill Cheek arrested
Author: Peter Maus <petermaus@aol.com>
Date: 1999/04/04
Forum: rec.radio.scanner
> I'm not aware of any current laws
that make it illegal to sell or
>have a 4 level FSK decoder. This would be like arresting a
gun dealer
>because one of his customers killed someone.
Wake up....The City of Chicago is suing
gun manufacturers for exactly this
reason, under the guise of marketing dangerous products in less
than
responsible ways. Its happening. Its an abuse of the
system, to be sure, but
its happening. AND with sanity all but gone from both the
courts AND goverment
in general hiding behind this kind of disbelief is exactly what
is needed for
these kinds of suits to become effective tools in the herding of
the public
into lives of 'approved' activity, value and belief.
Re: Cheek's Bust?
Author: LF686 <lf686@aol.com>
Date: 1999/04/03
Forum: rec.radio.scanner
>Look folks, regardless of what you think of
Bill Cheek personally, this
>has some pretty gruesome possibilities for many of us,
particularly those who
>use computer controlled receivers, or those who like to
monitor WEFAX and
>other
>digital communications.
John and all,
I have done business with Bill for many years
and sent him an email this
morning to see if he could clarify what is happening. I know
there are several
people here who have personal disagreements with him, however he
has
contirbuted much more to the radio hobby scene than any 10 people
I can think
of.
And you right that this has some real nasty
implications. The FSK decoders he
is selling are useful for a great many things. In addition I
don't recall
seeing a clear cut law stating that MDT decoding is illegal.
Certainly the guy
who allegedly posted MDT excerpts on his web site wasn't real
bright, and that
might indeed be a violation of the 1934 code.
I for one am tired of big money business and
our bought and paid for government
trampling on our rights. If/when I hear from Bill I will post
something here.
It is no lauging matter, if we don't start fighting for the
things that are
important to us, this hobby for instance, they will continue to
erode our
rights.
Larry Fowkes
Re: Bill Cheek arrested
Author: orasberries@my-dejanews.com <orasberries@my-dejanews.com>
Date: 1999/04/03
Forum: rec.radio.scanner
I think Bill Cheek should
have no problem (other than attorney
fees) defending this for the simple 4 Level FSK decoder that he
sells
since it could be proven that it does have legitimate uses. As
long as
he wasn't including MDT or pager decoder software.
I'm not aware of any current laws that
make it illegal to sell or
have a 4 level FSK decoder. This would be like arresting a gun
dealer
because one of his customers killed someone.
Secondly wouldn't the Secret Service
come under the "authorized
users" code that allows them to buy things like cell
unblocked
scanners, pager decoders, etc ?
On 3 Apr 1999 02:24:47 GMT, jtward01@aol.com.nospam (JTWard01) wrote:
>
> I want to know what it is the cops claim is
illegal that he was selling.
>Could it be his computer interface? If so, we've all
got problems.
>
>John T. Ward
>Brandon, Florida
>USA
Re: Bill Cheek arrested
Author: MAlexder <malexder@aol.com>
Date: 1999/04/03
Forum: rec.radio.scanner
>>Local Sheriff but the SS? Why would it be these guys?
I took a quick look at the Treasury Dept./Secret
Service web site. Apparently
in 1984 they were given additional responsibilities, including
the mission of
investigating "federal interest computer crimes."
Parenthetically, that does not mean they only
investigate crimes only involving
federally-owned computers. The 1984 computer fraud and abuse act
defines a
federal interest computer as anyone that is networked across
state lines, owned
and operated by someone who works or does work for the
government, among other
things. It's a pretty broad definition.
Re: Is it illegal?
Author: Gerald Taylor <getaylor@telepath.com>
Date: 1999/04/13
Forum: rec.radio.scanner
The laws that govern monitoring radio reception
of the type discussed here do
not make exceptions for any kind of "public service"
uses. It is illegal,
period. The law just looks the other way until the SS
chooses to play ruffian
with the Cheeks. My guess is that all news agencies also
monitor the MDT info.
We get closer and closer to 1984 every day, government behind
curtains of
unwarranted secrecy will very quickly become tyrannical. It
happens every time.
Bill Cheek Defense
Author: Rick <mave-rick@netro-polis.net>
Date: 1999/04/08
Forum: alt.radio.scanner
Hi everyone;
Just a few thoughts on what Bill (or anyone
else in a similar position)
might do to defend themselves from criminal liability for what
someone
else does with a product or information provided to them.
The text below comes from Bill's web site. It
is the terms and
conditions for purchasing a 4-level decoder. As I read it, if
someone
sends in an order for this product they are agreeing to the terms
below
so if a consumer/secret service agent in New York state made a
purchase
they are obligated to these terms. If they fail to comply with
those
terms then they have breached their contract with the seller and
can be
sued in civil court.
Supposing the worst case that Bill is
prosecuted successfully then
theoretically he could sue the purchaser for his damages. Forget
lost
wages, how much is your freedom worth? Of course I would much
rather
see Bill win his case and have some sense of sanity restored to
the laws
that govern this hobby and the communications industry in general.
Regards,
mave-rick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TERMS & CONDITIONS: All sales are final; no
returns-no refunds. 30-day
Performance Warranty on fully Assembled/Tested units (with
enclosure) is
strictly limited to selected software specified in the
Instruction Set. Units should
work with most other applicable programs, but we just can't
support other
people's software. Repair or replacement at our option during
that 30-day period.
No warranty on unenclosed assembled/tested boards, and no
warranty on Kits
or Instruction Sets.
Not responsible or liable for illegal use of
this information and/or these products;
nor for any consequences thereof. You must determine lawfulness
of the product
for your applications and region and not use them, if illegal.
Use of this information and/or product is 100%
exclusively at your own risk.
You must determine suitability and fitness of purpose of these
products to
your needs. I will not accept responsibility or liability for any
damage or loss
that results from use of these products, nor for damage or loss
that results from
connecting these devices to a scanner and/or a computer.
You must determine all risks and accept all
consequences of any damage to
hardware and/or data stored in the computer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Re: Letter from Bill Cheek
Author: Timmins <timmins@penn.com>
Date: 1999/04/12
Forum: rec.radio.scanner
MAlexder <malexder@aol.com> wrote in
message
news:19990412101748.04129.00002849@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> Here's a list of potential resources from the EFF that I
sent to Bill. I'm
> posting them here in case anyone has interest in looking
into this
further:
>
>Massive clip to save bandwidth<
Given the depth of feeling about the
entire subject of Radio Censorship
that has beengrowing in this country since the ECPA was enacted
in 1986 by
the Cellfone Industry, I am wondering if this case could be the
beginnings
of a massive Class Action Lawsuit on behalf of All the Scanner
listeners in
the Country, to try and put common sense back into the
Communications Law,
and not let the country be the laughingstock of the world yet
again.....
Bill, N3DDY
Re: Charges Against Cheek
Author: LF686 <lf686@aol.com>
Date: 1999/04/11
Forum: alt.radio.scanner
>But, Dunder, Head the Case is NOT over a 2
level Slicer. It is over a 4 Level
>Slicer and there is a VAST difference.
>
>IE, ONE works on MDT transmissions and the Other one Dosen't!!
Tom,
A 2 level slicer will indeed work on some
systems. And a 4 level slicer is
useful in many ways other than MDT decoding. My opinion would
have to be that
neither is illegal, in fact I don't remember ever reading any
statute which
made intercepting MDT transmissions illegal.
However our government doesn't always
play by the rules and small business men
like Bill or hobbyists like ourselves can see everything we
worked for all our
lives evaporate at warp 10. Government agencies can and do
trample citizens
rights pretty much as the mood strikes them. The actual written
law in many
cases has no bearing....kind of scary isn't it ?
Larry
Re: Cheek bust - substantiation
Author: Zombie Wolf <zmbwf@somtel.com>
Date: 1999/04/10
Forum: alt.radio.scanner
Tom Walker <Tom.Walker@f211.n1000.z52.warpgate.com>
wrote in message
news:de0_9904090700@warpgate.com...
> SN> >Control Program does Encode it so it cannot be
Decoded EXCEPT with
the
> SN> >Origional Program.
Bullmurkey, my boy. It is in plain ASCII, the
same as any text file on your
hard disk. It does NOT have any "encryption" scheme"
at all. The only
"software" needed to decode it is my trusty old KAM
ascii interface (which ,
no doubt, they will try to outlaw next). It can also be "decoded"
using the
FCC-approved data slicer that is built into my Optocom reciever,
and also
by software right through the sound card (guess they will have to
ban those
sound cards, too ! I think those computer games and applications
will be
kind of boring without a sound card !) They also better ban the
sale of any
kind of linear op - amp IC, and also diodes and such, because
people *might*
"misuse" them to build their OWN data slicer ! Yes sir,
by the time they are
done, they will have set technology back 50 years ! Are YOU ready
to go back
to tube technology ? The entire concept is ludicrous.
Re: Cheek bust - substantiation
Author: Zombie Wolf <zmbwf@somtel.com>
Date: 1999/04/10
Forum: alt.radio.scanner
Ah, yes, blind faith in the "rightness"
of the feds, and cops in general. I
don`t think that is the answer. I will say it again. Some of
these MDT
systems only require a 2 - level slicer to decode them, one of
which is
BUILT INTO the Optoelectronics Optocom, a radio which was
recently TYPE
APPROVED BY THEIR OWN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. They are
just
choosing to ignore this fact, in their zeal t bring down Bill
Cheek, who is
simply unfortunate enough to be a bit more "visible"
than the rest of us.
What they are trying to control here is not data slicers at all,
but the
FLOW OF INFORMATION ABOUT SCANNERS AND SCANNING IN GENERAL. They
want to
silence Cheek, because he had the audacity to tell it like it is
!
Why should these government agencies be so paranoid ? What is it
they are
trying to "protect" ? Their desire to create a "police
state", in which the
type of radio you can have and what you can listen to is strictly
"controlled" ? This is what happens in places like
Russia, and China , where
they want to control the people`s right to hear the TRUTH.
Re: What a jerk... (Bill Cheek Flamers)
Author: Shiva Nataraja <cloaked@spamshield.com>
Date: 1999/04/07
Forum: rec.radio.scanner
On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 16:07:09 GMT, StevieW@webtv.com (Steve W.) wrote:
>On 6 Apr 1999 11:04:13 GMT, tandkmoran@aol.com
(TandKMoran) wrote:
>
>
>>I must say - I sure do feel sorry for Bill. Seems like a
real bum rap from what
>>we know at this point.
>
>How do you figure? Everyone is ASSUMING that a
dataslicer is all he sold.
>This CAN'T be correct as there is absolutely nothing illegal
about that.
In a sane world, this statement would be
correct. However, this is the
United States Secret Service we're talking about here - the same
USSS
that virtually destroyed Steve Jackson's game company by
confiscating
all his computer equipment simply because he was making a role
playing
game with a "Cyberpunk" theme.
Re: Cheek's Bust?
Author: Zombie Wolf <zmbwf@somtel.com>
Date: 1999/04/06
Forum: rec.radio.scanner
Yup, that is the road we are headed down. In
another 20 years, it will be
more like Russia than Russia was !
Bud (the original) <thekit@san.rr.com>
wrote in message
news:370adf6c.15750866@news-server...
> On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 13:09:16 -0700, "Glenn"
<glenn.hansen@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bill may be headed for some rough waters. As somebody
posted earlier, his
> >web sites ad for the level converter states it can be
used for MDT
> >monitoring.
>
> The Internet is MORE than the repressive U.S..
>
> I can see it now, before you can buy a car, a kitchen knife,
or a ball of
> twine, you'll need to sign and have notarized a statement
that you will
> NOT use the items for anything illegal, and the seller
carries no
> responsibility for your actions after the sale.
Re: @How Will Cheek Profit From Bust?@
Author: Barry Adair <Barry@Adair.net>
Date: 1999/04/05
Forum: rec.radio.scanner
Many years ago, I was with the sheriff dept. in
a small NC county, the local
bootleggers, of moonshine, loved for us to bust them, they got
there name
and address in the newspaper, so free advertising that they could
not
normally get, many people will see this that did not know who
Bill was, so
it will be advertising for him.
fallicon wrote in message ...
>x-no-archive: yes
>"OTIAE{ u6pyup(IU{}pfg
>
>When this blows over, and provided he isn't in the joint (a
VERY real
>probability), how do you suppose Cheek will try to turn a
profit on it? A
>book,maybe? Guest appearances on Oprah and etc.?
>All suggestions welcome.....
Re: Legal defense fund for Cheek
Author: JTWard01 <jtward01@aol.com.nospam>
Date: 1999/04/05
Forum: rec.radio.scanner
All,
Any defense fund should be set up
as a non-interest bearing trust fund at a
commercial bank. Donations would go to the bank, not to any
individual. The
trust officer (an officer of the bank) would be empowered to
disburse trust
funds when presented with a proper invoice from the law firm
representing Bill
and Cindy in this matter. Any funds remaining in the
account at the end of the
legal proceedings (likely there would be none, but just in case)
should be
desigated for donation to a charity (I don't care which - pick
one.)
By establishing the fund in this manner there would
be no question as to its
legitimacy and no one, including the Cheeks, would profit from
it, other than
the benefit they would derive from having some of their legal
expenses paid.
John T. Ward
Brandon, Florida
USA
"If voting really mattered Congress would make it illegal."
Re: Cheek, Jackson
Author: Shiva Nataraja <removals1@iname.com>
Date: 1999/04/08
Forum: rec.radio.scanner
On Wed, 07 Apr 1999 08:50:37 GMT, joseph_henry@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Are details of the Jackson case on the web?
Sure, www.eff.org has lots of info on this. One example:
http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/SJG/
Re: Bill Cheek arrested
Author: TandKMoran <tandkmoran@aol.com>
Date: 1999/04/08
Forum: rec.radio.scanner
>If you were really a cop as you said in a
previous post, then you'd know that
this "password protection" is used for signon purposes
from the cruiser. It has
nothing to do with monitoring the transmissions.
#1- I didn't say I was a "Cop" (what
does that stand for - great trivia
question) or a Police Officer. I said I worked for the Police,
I'm not sworn
(but sometimes at!) Hmmm, now think real hard, what would a radio
geek such as
myself being doing working for the police??? (Could there be a
way to turn this
hobby into a very legal career???)
#2- Are you sure about your second assumption -
That because someone is a "cop"
they would know this? Most of our officers are shocked and amazed
when it's
proven to them how easily their 4800 baud MDT's are read by
people outside the
department. If anything, the sign-in process on the terminal adds
to the false
sense of privacy on these systems, wouldn't you agree? Currently,
I've heard
that our state's training for officers covers this fact, but it
wasn't always
so. I don't know what other academys teach.
#3- Re-read the rest of my post. You express
the point I was trying to make.
Clearly, the fact that someone at the scene advised the reporter
that the
terminals are "password protected" was an attempt by
the authorities to imply
that the system was somehow broken into, when you and I and
everyone else here
knows better. The offense is in disclosing the information, not
the reception
of the signal, nor the reading of the un-encrypted messages. I
see you have
quoted me out of context.
From a technical standpoint, there's little
difference between reading
un-encrypted MDT data signals and reading morse code signals.
They are nothing
more than tones. People have been reading radio teletype signals
off of
shortwave for more than 50 years.
Other folks have expressed concerns regarding
the privacy of information being
disseminated on MDT's. The vast majority of these details are
also broadcast in
the clear on voice channels. (Vehicle registrations, Driver's
License info and
history, even Criminal History File data).
Both MDT data and voice traffic are protected
from disclosure to third parties
by the Communications Act of 1934, there is no difference. It
boils down to:
Dont tell other people the details of conversations that you
monitor - it's
illegal. And frankly, if a department is using un-encrypted
mobile data
terminals for critical, sensitive criminal investigations it's my
opinion they
are using very poor judgement. The privacy of radio
communications is a
responsibility that should lay entirely on the users and
providers of the
circuit. Using a radio is like yelling out the window - why
should you have an
expectation of privacy?
It's a matter of common sense - if you are
worried about me, a casual hobbyist,
listening in or breaking your "encryption" (which is
currently already illegal
and something I don't do) what do you think your target is
doing??? I have very
little money and am motivated only by the entertainment value.
They have
bunches of dough and are trying to stay out of jail. Stop making
my hobby
illegal!!! Okay - I'll stop singing to the choir.
PS - No e-mail address??? Worried about your privacy? ;-)
Happy Scanning - Ted
Charges Against Cheek
Author: Tektot <tektot@usa.net>
Date: 1999/04/07
Forum: alt.radio.scanner
Read on:
PRESS RELEASE:
SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE CHIP SMITH AND UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY ZACHARY W. CARTER
ANNOUNCED TODAY THE ARRESTS OF BILL CHEEK AND CINDY CHEEK FOR
CONSPIRING TO
DISTRIBUTE PROHIBITED ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION INTERCEPTING
DEVICES. THE CHEEKS
WERE ARRESTED AT THEIR HOME IN SAN DIEGO PURSUANT TO A FEDERAL
ARREST WARRANT
ISSUED BY THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
THE CHEEKS HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE SALE
OF DEVICES DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR THE
SURREPTITIOUS INTERCEPTION OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
SUCH AS THE “MOBILE DATA
TERMINAL” INFORMATION WHICH IS BROADCAST BY LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES AND EMERGENCY
SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS.
Re: Bill Cheek arrested
Author: munsch <munsch@ibm.net>
Date: 1999/04/02
Forum: rec.radio.scanner
It appears that the Cheek arrest is *unrelated*
to the fine fellow on Long
Island. The story says he sold *something* to a Secret
Service buyer. This
will be interesting. I refer all to "The Hacker
Crackdown" by Bruce
Sterling, which chronicles an earlier ill-advised Secret Service
adventure
into something they were not prepared to understand, and still
haven't
recovered from.
--
Crazy George
Re: Cheek's Bust?
Author: Peter Maus <petermaus@aol.com>
Date: 1999/04/04
Forum: rec.radio.scanner
>>Look folks, regardless of what you
think of Bill Cheek personally, this
>>has some pretty gruesome possibilities for many of us,
But the truth of John Ward's statement should
not be lost. There are some very
real and very gruesome possibilities ahead of each of us
involved in the
hobby. Even those who are not involved in the gray areas of
decryption. We
are getting to the stage in this country of a presumption of
guilt based on
what we own or what we say, or what we believe and how these
things fit into
the political climate of the moment. Go back to Heston's
speech at Harvard
Law. These are not the benchmarks of freedom. They
certainly not the
benchmarks of sanity.
On the subject of fighting the good fight,
however, its time we took the issue
of our trampled rights to the people where it can do some good:
the people who
make the laws. Not the people who enforce them. Write
letters, call your
Congressmen, and Congresswomen, Senators, and other elected
representatives.
Until we have actually taken these issues through channels, the
success of
disobedience is going to be limited, if at all, and it's going to
carry some
horrid consequences.
Just a thought.
Comment from the U.K.
The equipment in question namely a "hamcomm
type interface" or 2/4 "level interface" is most
certainly not an illegal device and most certainly
does not "decrypt" or "unscramble" it is
merely an interface device that goes between the radio and the
computer and is used VERY widely in
the legitimate field of Amateur radio and with radio engineers,
hobbyists etc..it's purpose is to make the audio signals from a
radio
understandable to a computer serial port, the device cannot in
itself cannot unscramble or decode anything it is the software
that does that bit !.
This device has many uses one of the more common ones is to
transmit and receive slow scan television/fax/rtty and other ham
data modes etc.
over Amateur radio. It is true that it is widely used in scanning
for purposes of getting the signal from the radio to the computer
for the software
to decode certain protocols of data, but for the authorities to
make it illegal for that reason would be like making all cars
illegal because one
drunk driver ran over somebody in a car.
Also from what I understand a certain
individual in your country published a log of MDT data from the
police etc. on his web site, I personally
think that this was a very stupid and irresponsible act which not
only serves to jepordise the work of the law enforcement agency
but the
people who's information was displayed on those pages ( which
gives me the most concern of all) and also of course the radio
hobby itself,
personally the hobby and the field of radio does not need people
with such a careless attitude towards radio and what they may
pick up on it.
In defence of our hobby I will say that in this country at least
I have heard of many occasions where scanning and decoding has
been of great
use to the police and authorities. I myself as a former security
officer managed to stop a £140,000 embezzlement of the company I
was working
for and also helped capture an escaped prisoner and that was all
thanks to the scanner radio which I had at the time, not to
mention a few other
times I helped the authorities with my radio equipment. With
their blessing I add !.
Also before people jump on the band-wagon and
condemn all scanner users to an outcast place in society, it is
especially worth noting that the
United States Gov.and it's various intelligence agency's is one
of the worst offenders of illegal and unethical eavesdropping and
communication
interception in the World. Here in the UK we have to put up with
the heart of "Echelon" being right on our doorstep both
at Mowenstow
(GCHQ) and at Menwith hill RAF base (not to mention many other
places) , it is widely known fact that these bases are largely US
funded and
largely populated with American personnel. This of course makes
it easier for the US intelligence people to carry out domestic
surveillance on
the US people if they wish as they are not on US soil and it is
all blindly fronted by the UK Gov. who act as servants in all
this. Having the
American intelligence agency capable of screening up to 100,000
random calls at any one time from our PRIVATE phone lines
provided by 3
main British Telecom fibre optic cables that run through it (
facts of this were accidentally brought out in a recent court
case and then ordered
to be kept secret by the Judge) , not to mention the interception
of Iinmarsat and various other satellites that carry private and
commercial
voice/fax and data on them being intercepted by the authorities
using both voice recognition and computers to filter keywords
from
conversations, All this is rather more serious than the odd
scanner enthusiast overhearing you talking about your stomach
ache in a call to
your Aunt. but they seem oblivious to these facts when they
pounce on a mere little scanner enthusiast. The people of America
may well think
about what there Gov. is doing to them and others before they
worry about the small fry !.
It is for the above reasons that some radio
enthusiasts believe that it in some cases it is justifiable to
listen to what the Authorities are up to
also, most enthusiasts are usually responsible (the ones I know
are at least) and would not divulge personal information that
they happened
across unless of course it was a serious or life threatening
matter, in which case I am sure that any responsible person would
notify the
Authorities (anonymously if needed). Eavsdroppers website is
there for the Enthusiast, the radio Amateur, scanner enthusiasts
and radio
engineers/experimenters alike , it will remain here for the
future . As far as is humanly possible the laws of this country
are abided by with
regards to posting software for distribution or frequency
information which is not illegal, trying to intimidate web site
owners to drop their
software distribution will not make them go away merely push it
further underground. The hobby is here for all to enjoy and to
make better, and
with this comes a responsibility to use common sense and not to
jepordise any law agencys legitimate work, divulge personal
information etc
Best regards Ian K.