Software-defined radio is amazing, but is it legal?
The laws are old and it’s not tested but let’s start a discussion and see where SDR falls in the current laws.
Sources:
*Cellular Blocks:
https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Cell_blocked
*FCC Interception and Divulgence:
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/interception-and-divulgence-radio-communications
*United Nations Arrest:
https://www.rtl-sdr.com/united-nations-expert-arrested-in-tunisia-for-using-an-rtl-sdr/
I would argue that SDRs are not within the scope of “scanning receiver” as defined in 47 CFR sec. 15.3(v).
The reason for this is that while an SDR can be operated on different frequencies, by itself it cannot automatically switch frequencies.
I think if you consider the legislative intent, it was designed to prevent eavesdropping on analog cellular service that is now obsolete, so there is no need to read the statute as being any more inclusive than of analog scanning receivers (i.e. “police scanners”) that existed in the early 1990s.
I don’t disagree that the law is old and not really relevant but it’s still on the books and scanner manufactures still follow it.
You are correct that by itself it’s not a scanner but with a plugin and 3 minutes of time it can be a scanner. Most of those laws stipulate that if it can be ‘easily modified’ it’s still breaking said law.
I’m not saying that currently these are illegal (although in theory maybe they are) my concern is that maybe some day these old laws will come back to haunt us and be used to harm SDR.
My interpretation withing the U.S. Jurisdiction is the “use” of the devices being “non-public” and for personal gain or “personal benefit”.
In general the intent was to preserve the Rights of the citizens of the U.S. Jurisdiction and maintain a standard of Public Health and Safety.
Furthermore, when attorneys are involved with situations (since no one is educated in any school system that I am aware of regarding Pro-Se Rights in detail) some maintain their obligations to the Article 1 Courts and then their Clients. Other attorneys… act like continuing criminal enterprises for cartels/gangs/mafias/(typically intent on the commission of crime(s) groups) conspiring against rights and depriving rights under color of law and worse… up to and including insurgent unlawful armed combat operations in guerrilla or worse ways and means. Thinking the FCC isn’t that corrupt yet, though is having issues.
I’m sure the later is what got Bill Cheeks under the FBI’s RADAR since the FCC most likely identified “modifications that were readily” available on the market instead of the U.S. Jurisdiction Constitutional Rights Protected Freedom of Speech and the Press documents demonstrating controversial ways and means in detail.
Once production and sales or “manufacture, import, sell or lease such unauthorized equipment in the United States” of “modified to convert digital transmissions to analog voice audio” line was crossed for “personal benefit”… a counterclaim had to be made to justify what public benefit that I’d guess would be public Health and Safety substantiated the acts that caused and argument and didn’t meet the code definitions (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/15.3) reasonably.
SDR’s are legal as long as the device and operations comply with the spirit, intent and letter of the code.
My interpretation within the U.S. Jurisdiction is the “use” of the devices being “non-public” and for personal gain or “personal benefit” in general is the intent was to preserve the Rights of the citizens of the U.S. Jurisdiction and maintain a standard of Public Health and Safety along with not infringing on those Rights when following the spirit, intent and letter of the law. Once profiteering is involved or criminal conduct… then that is where further investigation can be warranted due to reasonable suspicion.
Furthermore, when attorneys are involved with situations (since no one is educated in any school system that I am aware of regarding Pro-Se Rights in detail) some maintain their obligations to the Article 1 Courts and then their Clients. Other attorneys… act like continuing criminal enterprises for cartels/gangs/mafias/(typically intent on the commission of crime(s) groups) conspiring against rights and depriving rights under color of law and worse… up to and including insurgent unlawful armed combat operations in guerrilla or worse ways and means. Thinking the FCC isn’t that corrupt yet, though is having issues.
I’m sure the later is what got Bill Cheeks under the FBI’s RADAR since the FCC most likely identified “modifications that were readily” available on the market instead of the U.S. Jurisdiction Constitutional Rights Protected Freedom of Speech and the Press documents demonstrating controversial ways and means in detail.
In Bill Cheeks situation, once production and sales or “manufacture, import, sell or lease such unauthorized equipment in the United States” of “modified to convert digital transmissions to analog voice audio” line was crossed for “personal benefit”… a counterclaim had to be made to justify what public benefit can substantiate public Health and Safety acts committed to cause the argument that the act didn’t meet the code definitions (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/15.3) reasonably.