[FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB

Fri, 26 Apr 2002 06:59:18 -0400

The possibility exists that the security personnel at the referenced
airport just don't like scanner enthusiasts and hassled the individuals and
gave the BS explanation about an FAA mandate.  I called the FAA yesterday
and was bumped from person to person -- none of whom could or would confirm
or deny the alleged regulation.  I was then directed to the new
Transportation Security Administration where once again I was bumped from
person to person, department to department.  I finally spoke with a staff
attorney who requested that I submit my inquiry in writing.  So I sent him
both a FAX and e-mail.  I wonder if I receive a response or a visit from
the FBI.
Regarding the NTSB, if they are now encrypted too what is left for us to
monitor?

"Rankin, Robert L" <[email protected]> on 04/25/2002 05:37:50 PM

To:   Arthur-Bryan Phelps/Allentown/Field/OVR
cc:
Subject:  RE: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB

Yeah, personally I tend to think that this is all baloney.  You have to
consider who you're dealing with in "airport security".  I suppose some of
them may be trained and conscientious police officers, but I'd bet a chunk
of my daily salary that lots of them, especially nowadays, are high school
dropouts who simply like to boss people around.  And to that end, if
someone
challenges them, they make up the rules as they go along.  They like to
think of themselves in some sort of James Bond role when, in reality, they
oughta be flipping burgers.

BTW, I never got any takers on the PL tone for NTSB, although some time ago
I recall someone saying they had gone encrypted.  Nevertheless, I keep
those
3 channels active in my scanners in case something interesting pops up.

Bob, w0nxn

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: 4/25/02 9:33 AM
Subject: RE: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB

Mr. Cobb appears to have vanished.  Does this whole thing sound strange
to
anyone else or is it just me?  I mean we are given an alleged
law/mandate
(whatever) that conveniently can't be verified under the guise of
Terrorism/Terrorist Controls (a term that I never heard used before). If
anyone lives near the airport he referenced, please call their
security/police unit to get some information on this "new FAA mandate."
I
think we all have to work together until this is either confirmed or can
be
dispelled as misinformation.

[email protected] on 04/25/2002 10:35:09 AM

Please respond to [email protected]

To:   [email protected]
cc:    (bcc: Arthur-Bryan Phelps/Allentown/Field/OVR)
Subject:  RE: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB

good deal maybe we can find out a secondary confirmation or find out if
someone got thier wires crossed
don

http://www.angelfire.com/ms2/paswx/  MY WEATHER PAGE updated every 20
minutes

-----Original Message-----
From:     "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
on
behalf of "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent:     Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:25:22 -0400
To:  "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject:  RE: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB

Thanks, Don.  Please keep me and the others posted.  I plan to call the
FAA
today.

[email protected] on 04/25/2002 09:40:29 AM

Please respond to [email protected]

To:   [email protected]
cc:    (bcc: Arthur-Bryan Phelps/Allentown/Field/OVR)
Subject:  RE: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB

not other than the initial information
no secondary confirmation
I am awaiting response from my congressional critters(sent WED)
don

http://www.angelfire.com/ms2/paswx/  MY WEATHER PAGE updated every 20
minutes

-----Original Message-----
From:     "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
on
behalf of "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent:     Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:44:31 -0400
To:  "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject:  RE: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB

Was anyone able to confirm this "New FAA Mandate" as fact?  I'm
confused.
Paul said he called the FAA and they confirmed it.  Has anyone else
called
the FAA?  Also, if the FAA truly confirmed the restriction of scanner,
receiver use t controlled airports, why would Paul then call his
Congressman?  Again, has anyone confirmed or nullified the veracity of
this
secret law?

"Thomas J. Dalrymple" <[email protected]> on 04/23/2002 07:58:10 PM

Please respond to [email protected]

To:   [email protected]
cc:    (bcc: Arthur-Bryan Phelps/Allentown/Field/OVR)
Subject:  RE: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB

Silly question......  has anyone (other than the original poster) called
their
congressman or senator to verify the existence of this law?  Larry Van
Horn, do
you have any info?  Paul Cobb, you were the original poster; who's your
congressman and what's the name of the person who quoted this law to
you?

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
On Behalf Of ed
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [FedCom] "On Scene" Barnes MAP/ANGB

ken,  you may be right that nobody on the list is up for a legal
challenge,
especially if it involves being arrested.  unfortunately, our legal
system
requires people to challenge egregious laws in order for them to be
struck
down, and you must show you've been harmed by a law in order to have a
case.  the history of jurisprudence is full of examples of this.

understandably, few people on this list want to deal with this and pay
money it requires to do this.  as for how this stupid policy became law,
it's probably safe to say that public input was neither solicited nor
seriously considered.  american democracy can work, but only if people
actively participate (and this means a lot more than just voting.)

fear and intimidation tactics are the usual methods used to enact and
keep
egregious laws like this in force.  if we do nothing about it, then we
get
the laws and law enforcement that we deserve.  the frustrating part
about
this particular situation is that nobody can even prepare to challenge a
law if their own elected representative won't let them read it because
it's
supposedly "secret" (this is for your own good, after all.)

if people on this list believe this will be the last law enacted that
criminalizes monitoring the public airwaves, then they're going to be
sadly
mistaken.  let's look into challenging this--a good start would be to
obtain the text of the specific law that supposedly criminalizes
monitoring
at an airport.  contrary to popular belief, we do have some federal laws
that you're not allowed to read.  challenging the secrecy of this
particular law may not require being charged with violating
it.  challenging the law itself is another story.

anyone want to dig deeper on this?

-ed

_______________________________________________
FedCom mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom

_______________________________________________
FedCom mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
_______________________________________________
FedCom mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom

_______________________________________________
FedCom mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
_______________________________________________
FedCom mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom

_______________________________________________
FedCom mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom