Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/10/2002 11:49:53 PM EDT
A friend of mine ask me tonight if there was anything he could do about a neighbor listining in on his phone calls with a scanner.Its a long story how he knows, but something was said to another friend about us shooting,then something on the phone the neighbor came over bla bla bla.Any how I told him to quit useing a cordless phone but his wife is staying out of state and she calls every night while he is doing the house work.I agree with him that its wrong to listen to someone phone calls. But I couldnot think of onother sulution other than maybe a new Vtec phone.Dose any of you have a salution?
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 12:05:12 AM EDT
On the next call he should tell the person on the other end that he is going to kill the neighbor for listening to his calls. [shock] He should then immediately go to said neighbors place after ending said call.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 12:13:50 AM EDT
Has the topic of possible affairs by the neighbor's wife (with some other guy) been discussed?
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 12:14:38 AM EDT
Upgrade from a 900Mhz to 2.4Ghz phone. Not impossible to listen in on, but harder. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 12:16:43 AM EDT
Then there's always orchestrated disinformation on the old phone, while having a new phone for reality.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 12:17:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By bunghole: On the next call he should tell the person on the other end that he is going to kill the neighbor for listening to his calls. [shock] He should then immediately go to said neighbors place after ending said call.
View Quote
Yeah, and the neighbor shoots him. He can use a landline phone until he buys a digitally encrypted spread spectrum phone like the VTECH or some of the others that are manufactured.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 12:19:42 AM EDT
If he is doing nothing illegal, then he should not mind being monitored.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 12:29:07 AM EDT
Thanks for your replys.I think we may use the wife thing for a while and see what happens. Hell this may turn out to be fun!
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 10:44:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 11:12:22 AM EDT
Go digital!
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 11:19:08 AM EDT
Get one of these 2.4 GHZ, 24 channel-hopping modern wireless phones, as opposed to the old Bell 5 channel, 27 MHZ clunkers ;) [url]http://www.radioshack.com/category.asp?catalog%5Fname=CTLG&category%5Fname=CTLG%5F001%5F001%5F002%5F000&Page=1[/url] I'd look into a Siemens, though.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 11:22:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By tatjana: My brother advised a friend of his on a similar but not exact situation and they set up a bit of disinformation that burned the eavesdroppers rump. . . . "Let us guess, the tip was from the next door neighbor illegally listening to our phone call with his scanner... right? On June 3, 2002? Right. Here's the transcript of our conversation. Go arrest him. We made it all up." -Tatjana (the evil one)
View Quote
All okay and funny-n-stuff, but for one little thing. His scanner, and listening to broadcast frequencies is not illegal. Do have your fun though!
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 11:29:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/11/2002 11:30:52 AM EDT by cluster]
I really , really hate it when people upgrade to the new digitals phones.... It means I have to reach [i][b]ALL[/i][/b] the way around to the back seat and get get my "other" setup.. [}:D] being paid to be taught how to unscramble is goood [}:D][0:)][}:D][0:)][}:D][0:)][}:D][0:)][}:D][0:)][}:D]
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 11:30:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/11/2002 11:34:44 AM EDT by mr_camera_man]
I second the opinions recommending a 900 MHz or 2.4 GHz *digital* cordless. Listening to one of these on a scanner sounds like picking up the phone when a modem is connected on another extension. "Cracking" into the signal would probably require special software and a few days' effort. EDIT: cluster, that's cheating. care to share your info with the group, so we know how to aviod you? [;)] Eavesdropping on cordless phones has given me hours of wholesome entertainment, though! I found out that a female neighbor had a crush on me [:D], and that a male neighbor was into BDSM on 900 numbers. [puke]
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 11:33:35 AM EDT
Er, well... Talking on a cordless phone is roughly the equivalent of having an extremely loud conversation with someone on a streetcorner. As you're not on a cable, your (at least, my) expectations of privacy are nil. Anyone with a friggin crystal radio set and a half a clue can pick up the conversation. I tried to explain this to my father...who sees nothing wrong with picking up a cordless phone, and ordering things with his credit card on it. It's like buying things on a website that dosen't use encryption. Sure, it is theoretically ok...but half the world could be watching, too. Anyhow...I'd do as someone else suggested [;)] Start playing some mindgames with the dork with the scanner. Some possible tacks to take: - Talk about how you always wondered what would happen to a car if you poured 2 pounds of sugar into the gas tank...and then say that you'll find out tomorrow, when the neighbor starts his car. - Talk in a code. Arrange a friend to randomly call several times during the day, and have conversations that go something like this, exclusivly: "The fat man sings on Tuesdays." "Understood. The wet cat loves red leather. Repeat, red leather." "Confirmed. The milkman delivers chocolate milk." *click* Wow, I could have some real fun with this [;D] Ed
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 11:38:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Iridium:
Originally Posted By tatjana: My brother advised a friend of his on a similar but not exact situation and they set up a bit of disinformation that burned the eavesdroppers rump. . . . "Let us guess, the tip was from the next door neighbor illegally listening to our phone call with his scanner... right? On June 3, 2002? Right. Here's the transcript of our conversation. Go arrest him. We made it all up." -Tatjana (the evil one)
View Quote
All okay and funny-n-stuff, but for one little thing. His scanner, and listening to broadcast frequencies is not illegal. Do have your fun though!
View Quote
Depends on state law, and if he is recording any of these conversations he can be in big trouble. So, have some conversations you think will cause your neighbor to start recording. Then get 'em busted, and they will be in serious trouble.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 11:41:07 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 11:42:29 AM EDT
If you know his significant other's name, talk about the nasty things she does to you while your wife is out of town.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 11:44:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/11/2002 11:45:37 AM EDT by cnatra]
Originally Posted By Kar98: Get one of these 2.4 GHZ, 24 channel-hopping modern wireless phones, as opposed to the old Bell 5 channel, 27 MHZ clunkers ;) I'd look into a Siemens, though.
View Quote
One thing that's always disturbed me about 2.4ghz over 900mhz is the fact that Siemens developed 2.4ghz for DOD in the 70's & it was a DOD exlusive frequency for a couple of decades. I hate to break out the tin foil hat [peep] but I just wonder if there's a reason 2.4ghz is being marketed more than ever. Is a digital spread spectrum 900mhz really inferior to a DSS 2.4ghz ???
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 11:51:57 AM EDT
Actually as tempting as the setup scenario is, I feel like being the voice of restraint and pointing out that its a needless drain on Police Resources and it can very well get you in trouble.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 11:55:16 AM EDT
The person on the phone in trouble? Doubtful. The fool who keeps calling the cops? More than likely. You can only cry wolf so many times before you get swatted...
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 11:55:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mr_camera_man: I second the opinions recommending a 900 MHz or 2.4 GHz *digital* cordless. Listening to one of these on a scanner sounds like picking up the phone when a modem is connected on another extension. "Cracking" into the signal would probably require special software and a few days' effort. EDIT: cluster, that's cheating. care to share your info with the group, so we know how to aviod you? [;)] Eavesdropping on cordless phones has given me hours of wholesome entertainment, though! I found out that a female neighbor had a crush on me [:D], and that a male neighbor was into BDSM on 900 numbers. [puke]
View Quote
All cordless phones can be easily monitored. If you don't want average people with scanners to hear you, use a land line. Problem solved.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 11:56:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Evil_Ed: - Talk in a code. Arrange a friend to randomly call several times during the day, and have conversations that go something like this, exclusivly: "The fat man sings on Tuesdays." "Understood. The wet cat loves red leather. Repeat, red leather." "Confirmed. The milkman delivers chocolate milk." *click*
View Quote
I have done this! PS: The milkman was late. The paperboy delivered the paper.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 12:01:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cnatra: Is a digital spread spectrum 900mhz really inferior to a DSS 2.4ghz ???
View Quote
Well, the idea seems to be that up there (2.4Gig) the wavelength is shorter, so you can fit more channels into a certain spectrum, which allows the phone to hop over more channels to avoid collision or detection. Also, the narrower the channel, the harder it is to pick it up.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 12:01:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Katana16j: Actually as tempting as the setup scenario is, I feel like being the voice of restraint and pointing out that its a needless drain on Police Resources and it can very well get you in trouble.
View Quote
For all they know-- you could be role playing or reading a book to your friend, etc. Its none of their business what you talk about, what you say in private, etc. If they report you, and take it out of context, then that's their problem.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 12:03:05 PM EDT
How secure are cell phones? Karl
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 12:03:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Kar98:
Originally Posted By cnatra: Is a digital spread spectrum 900mhz really inferior to a DSS 2.4ghz ???
View Quote
Well, the idea seems to be that up there (2.4Gig) the wavelength is shorter, so you can fit more channels into a certain spectrum, which allows the phone to hop over more channels to avoid collision or detection. Also, the narrower the channel, the harder it is to pick it up.
View Quote
Yeah, but I have seen some 2.4GHz phones that transmit from the base at 2.4GHz, and the handset at 900MHz.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 12:04:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By krazy_karl: How secure are cell phones? Karl
View Quote
Depends on the band. the old 800MHz ones are not really secure at all.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 12:08:48 PM EDT
In general, no matter how secure you think your phone line is (I [i]think[/i] my particulare cellphone is pretty secure), don't say anything on the phone you wouldn't repeat in front of a judge or your grandmother the nun.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 12:10:06 PM EDT
"The cricket with the wooden leg kicked all the seeds out of the dill pickle on Tuesday" [peep]
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 12:19:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 12:41:09 PM EDT
Well, the idea seems to be that up there (2.4Gig) the wavelength is shorter, so you can fit more channels into a certain spectrum, which allows the phone to hop over more channels to avoid collision or detection. Also, the narrower the channel, the harder it is to pick it up.
View Quote
The wavelength is shorter, but the rest of your statement is incorrect. The number of channels is based on the assigned allocated spectrum. It has nothing to do with the frequency. The ISM band 902-928MHz is legitimately used for many types of communications and must follow certain rules for power output depending on spread spectrum operation or single frequency operation. The 2.4GHz band is trash. (I do not know offhand the range of this band, but it could be super-wide, and could yield more channels as a result.) Microwave ovens are among the wide-band garbage signals up there (usually 2.64GHz). A narrow-bandwidth spread-spectrum signal performs okay within this band. The bandwidth to be used is determined by the design of the product, not by the frequency band it is in, unless they are following strict FCC guidelines for that band. Also, for further distance, a narrow band signal is best for the signal to noise ratio. Voice signals are easy to make narrow-bandwidth.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 12:44:27 PM EDT
Thanks for clarifying that.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 12:51:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By tatjana: My brother advised a friend of his on a similar but not exact situation and they set up a bit of disinformation that burned the eavesdroppers rump. Try something like this: Ring. "Hello?" "It's Dave." "Dave, I'm glad you called. Look, what am I going to do with the body?" "Just relax. Tomorrow, go get some gardening tools. Especially a pair of shovels. I know just where to bury it. We'll put it in your trunk and drive it out there before dawn." "Look, what if we get pulled over or something?" "Is your registration up to date? Any taillights out?" "No." "Ok, just relax then. I'll take care of it." "What about my money." "Relax. I've got it. We owe you for the job, no question." "What about the girl's parents." "Again, relax. It's no sweat. She's in college, they won't report her missing for days. Even when they do no one will take it seriously for a week or more. Plenty of time to cover our tracks." "And the knife?" "Leave that to me." "Ok." "Now get off the phone." "Ok." -click- Police get called with an "anonymous tip." They investigate, brother and friend burst out laughing. "Let us guess, the tip was from the next door neighbor illegally listening to our phone call with his scanner... right? On June 3, 2002? Right. Here's the transcript of our conversation. Go arrest him. We made it all up." Even if you don't have a nosy neighbor, but you have three-way calling, it's horrible fun to call a third person and pretend you can't hear them, as if the lines are crossed, and repeat about the same conversation. -Tatjana (the evil one)
View Quote
uuuummmmmmmmmmm.... its not illegal to listen to "Radio signals" with a scanner. Thats all a cordless or cell phone is is a radio trancever. If you dont whant to be listened to....get a land line. R35
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 1:24:44 PM EDT
While listening to a radio conversation may not be illegal, reporting the contents of the communication to ANYONE else, even the police, is. It is also illegal to make use of any information obtained by listening to a radio communication, such as a criminal using a scanner to listen to the police to avoid getting caught during a robbery or overhearing a hot stock tip and using it to make an investment. A special rule had to be made to allow news reporters to use information obtained by listening to Amateur Radio communications during an emergency so that they would not be in violation of the Federal Communications laws.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 1:28:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/11/2002 1:29:23 PM EDT by Energizer]
Originally Posted By Rescue35: uuuummmmmmmmmmm.... its not illegal to listen to "Radio signals" with a scanner. Thats all a cordless or cell phone is is a radio trancever. If you dont whant to be listened to....get a land line. R35
View Quote
Actually, I believe there are various local and federal laws against listening to certain types of wireless communications, just like there are laws against "listening" and "translating" (i.e. decrypting) "wireless" radio signals from satellite TV providers (within the Unites States). Some of these laws include stipulations for monitoring cordless phones (49/46MHz ranges, 800/900MHz, 2.xGHz, etc.), ALL Cell phones, etc. Look it up. Prove me wrong. PS: Some laws that I have read, indicate that you cannot repeat, record, or benefit from certain monitored frequencies, like cell phones and cordless phones.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 1:36:54 PM EDT
You may want to look up the "Electronic Communications Protection Act," a tripartate law which makes it illegal to monitor communications that travel - at least in part - over a "leased line" or a "land line" (telephony, either cellular or POTS.) The ECPA was ramrodded thru beginning in 1986 or so, in response to private citizens with scanning recievers monitoring the fledgeling CMT system and actually capitalising on communications they recieved (usually in Real Estate.) Scannists would pick up developers on the phone yakking away, and would find the land they were talking about and take out options (or buy it outright!) and profit handsomely. Developers becane tired of this. Being the lazy bastards they are (and remember, encryption devices were ALREADY available for CMT then!) they instead passed the largely unenforcable ECPA 1986, 1990, 1994. Since your neighbour is monitoring a telephony conversation, which will travel over a telephone company landline, he is in violation of ECPA. You can find more ECPA information on various scannists' websites, and links to the actual text of the law. Add'l - why are you being monitored? Sheer bloody-mindedness? I must admit to the idea of the ECPA being silly and about as useful as the vermiform appendix (and I object to it on moral grounds!) but it is law, and may be useful to you... FFZ
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 1:41:45 PM EDT
[url]http://www.phonelosers.org/cordless.html[/url]
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 2:00:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By krazy_karl: How secure are cell phones? Karl
View Quote
Ha! Perfectly! Just ask the NSA. (LOL!)
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 2:14:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/11/2002 2:30:58 PM EDT by Boomholzer]
Originally Posted By krazy_karl: How secure are cell phones? Karl
View Quote
NAMPS and simular RF analog cell phones are not very secure. Any scanner that can scan the FM channels in that BW (bandwidth, ~800MHz-950MHz), can intercept the call. Note that you can intercept half the call, either the TX transmission or the RX, a duplexer or additional equipment is needed to listen to both ends. GSM, CDMA, TDMA and other "2G and higher" digital cell phone technologys is secure from eavesdropping from scanners. Note that most 2.4GHz cordless (spread spectrum)phones use a cheesy form of CDMA encryption. This is what buys you the real security, not the higher frequency.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 3:58:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Energizer:
. R35
View Quote
Actually, I believe there are various local and federal laws against listening to certain types of wireless communications, ...... Look it up. Prove me wrong.
View Quote
It gets back to [i]intent[/i]. Possession and use of the equipment used to monitor such frequencies is no illegal. Monitoring those frequencies is not necessary illegal. Acting upon any information might be. Bottom line tell the guy to get a 50' cord for his land line. In the words of Gene Hackman [i]Enemy Of The State[/i]: [b]STAY OFF THE PHONE[/B]
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 4:19:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 4:35:59 PM EDT
What's a "phone"?[%l]
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 8:05:55 PM EDT
Alot of good advice. I too have an older pro-51 scanner that can pickup cordless and cellphones or so im told. I was just looking for information for my friend to combat this. Thanks to all.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 5:14:46 AM EDT
I would like to know why they made such a big deal of blocking certain cellular frequencies on new scanners (back in the early 90's), but did not bother to block the cordless phone frequencies... Maybe since the 49MHz area is used by a lot of devices, including remote controlled toys???
Top Top