[FedCom] Re - Secret Law

[ken windyka]

Peter is correct BUT will this whole thing going to get out of hand again?
Difficult to believe that FBI agents would visit people just for asking a
simple question to avoid violating the law -- but just because an
investigator talks to you doesn't mean you've violated any law!!!! Also
even before 9/11 many airports had expanded their no parking/stopping areas
on approaches to airports, public access  roads close to taxiways, etc.
Furthermore many 'sensitive' facilities always had a policy to respond to
any vehicles stopped EVEN if on a public highway going right by that
facility. Law Enforcement can ask folks to move along in just about any
circumstance anyways.  Don't you think that the feds already have people
assigned to look at all these scanner related hobby mail lists?  On FEDCOM
you don't even have to join the list in order to read and/or download the
achieves.   I would bet that the hobby publications such as "Monitioring
Times", "Popular Communications", "Scanning USA", would be doing
appropriate official press inquiries to alert hobbyists of such a law. 

HOWEVER, apparently Hanscom AFB's open house/air show has restricted
scanner operation for visitors to the show per their prerecorded show
hotline at 781-377-5287 for details.  Also the FAQ at the airshow website
see htt://www.hanscomairshow2002.com appears to ban scanners, two way radio
equipment, etc. BUT allows cellular/pcs phones.

FURTHERMORE, the  U.S. Air Force has instituted a program called Called
"Eagle Eyes," the program aims to prevent terrorism by encouraging and
enabling Air Force members and citizens to report terrorist planning
activities they observe.  The program also features processes for rapid 
follow-up investigations and information sharing to other echelons of command 
and OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES as appropriate.
REPORTABLE activities include:
--  SURVEILLANCE. Someone recording or monitoring activities. This may
include using cameras (either still or video), taking notes, drawing
diagrams, annotating on maps, or using binoculars or other vision-enhancing
devices. (BUT SCANNERS & RADIO COMMS  ARE LEFT OUT??)
--  ELICITATION.  People or organizations attempting to gain information
about military operations, capabilities, or people.  Elicitation attempts
may be made by mail, fax, telephone, or in person.
--  TESTS OF SECURITY.  Any attempts to measure reaction times to security
breaches or to penetrate physical security barriers or procedures in order
to assess strengths and weaknesses.
-- ACQUIRING SUPPLIES.  Purchasing or stealing explosives, weapons,
ammunition, etc. Also includes acquiring military uniforms, decals, flight
manuals, passes or badges (or the equipment to manufacture such items) or
any other controlled items.
-- SUSPICIOUS PERSONS OUT OF PLACE.  These are people who don't seem to
belong in the workplace, neighbourhood, business establishment, or anywhere
else.  This includes suspicious border crossings and stowaways aboard ship
or people jumping ship in port.
-- DRY RUN:  Putting people into position and moving them around according
to their plan without actually committing the terrorist act.  This is
especially true when planning a kidnapping, but it can also pertain to
bombings.  An element of this activity could also include mapping out routes 
and determining the timing of traffic lights and flow.
--  DEPLOYING ASSETS:  People and supplies getting into position to commit
the act.  This is a person's last chance to alert authorities before the
terrorist act occurs.

So aero monitoring/photo hobbyists are probably going to be greatly
affected by these new reporting guidelines that perhaps have also been
instituted selected FAA civilian airports.

Regarding scanners at FAA major airports, etc.  What isn't logically is
that most radio signals travel off the airport site anyways.  I'm 30+ miles
away from the nearest major civilian passenger airport and even with a
portable antenna on the scanner I can pickup the repeaters that carry
airport administration, fire, and some of the security activity (one talk
group is patched back into the old high band VHF system & may be used by
some security personnel), the State PD troop assigned to security uses a
digital trunking system.   

Another aspect is that hobbyists generally are going to stick around an
area for a fairly long period of time.  Now they will become suspects when
in fact a group of vehicles travelling quickly though the airport at
various times could actually take pictures, record audio, & scoop
frequencies relatively quickly.  There's plenty of ways to do covert video
surveillance from vehicles.

The potential terrorists we are dealing with have shown in the past that
they have some very smart people who plan these attacks and part of the
equation was the surperb "covert" surveillance.

I guess the aero related scanner hobbyists have become casualties to these
well meaning programs.  BUT frankly this could also apply to folks who like
to watch trains, ships, and perhaps ANY non public related event as well.
Furthermore, I would guess that even outdoor hobbyist/hikers that have
knapsacks on their backs & are walking into the woods next to high voltage
transmission lines could also be termed suspecious!!! 

Perhaps more information will become available in the future.  I highly
doubt that any hobbyists wants to be a martyr to prove a point.  If it IS
THE LAW than that's the way it is!!!! 

Ken Windyka
Springfield MA Monitoring Area  


At 02:15 PM 5/9/02 -0400, aphelps@dli.state.pa.us
 wrote:
>I know of one person named Brenden who has made several inquiries to the
>newly formed Transportation Security Administration, into which the FAA's
>Civil Aviation Security  Organization has been itegrated.  Subsequent to
>his initial request he received both a telephone call and a personal visit
>from the FBI, but no response from the FAA/TSA either confirming or denying
>the veracity of the original post on this issue.

>zerg90@webtv.net (pS) on 05/09/2002 02:15:45 PM
>Whatever happened to the discussion about the supposedly new secret law
>that banned scanning at controlled airports?
>
>Peter S