[House Report 106-24]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 106-24
=======================================================================
WIRELESS PRIVACY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1999
_______
February 23, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bliley, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 514]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 514) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to
strengthen and clarify prohibitions on electronic
eavesdropping, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend
that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 1
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Hearings......................................................... 3
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 4
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 4
Committee on Government Reform Oversight Findings................ 4
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 4
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 4
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 4
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 6
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 6
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 6
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 6
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 6
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 9
Purpose and Summary
The purpose of H.R. 514, the Wireless Privacy Enhancement
Act of 1999, is to enhance the privacy of users of cellular and
other mobile communications services. The changes embodied in
H.R. 514 are necessary to prohibit modification of currently
available scanners and to prevent the development of a market
for new digital scanners capable of intercepting digital
communications.
The bill has four main components. First, the bill extends
current scanning receiver manufacturing restrictions to prevent
the manufacture of scanners that are capable of intercepting
communications in frequencies allocated to new wireless
communications, namely personal communications services, and
protected paging and specialized mobile radio services. Second,
the bill prohibits the modification of scanners and requires
the Federal Communications Commission (the Commission or FCC)
to strengthen its rules to prevent the modification of scanning
receivers, including through the adoption of additional
requirements to prevent the tampering of scanning receivers.
Third, the bill makes it illegal to intentionally intercept or
divulge the content of radio communications. Lastly, the bill
improves the enforcement of privacy law by increasing the
penalties available for violators and requiring the Commission
to move expeditiously on investigations of potential
violations.
Background and Need for Legislation
Over 68 million Americans subscribe to cellular or other
commercial mobile services. The majority of cellular services
used today are based on analog technology. Analog
communications are susceptible to unauthorized eavesdropping
from scanners since voice signals, an analog form of
communication, need not be decoded when intercepted over a
scanner. During an oversight hearing on February 5, 1997, the
Subcommittee saw a demonstration ofhow easily over-the-shelf
scanners may be modified to enable them to intercept cellular
communications. Digital cellular, the next generation of cellular
services, and digital personal communications services (PCS) are less
susceptible to unauthorized eavesdropping than analog cellular. PCS
services are digital services that combine voice services with data
(paging, messaging, caller identification) and possibly video services,
over the same handset. While digital cellular and PCS are not immune
from eavesdropping, they are currently more secure than analog cellular
because the equipment for intercepting digital calls is vastly more
expensive and complex than existing, off-the-shelf scanners that
intercept analog communications (e.g., $200 vs. $10,000-$30,000).
However, one of the purposes of the bill is to prevent a market from
developing for less expensive digital scanners by clearly prohibiting
the authorization of such scanners by the FCC.
Several existing statutes are intended to protect cellular
users' privacy. Section 705(a) of the Communications Act of
1934 prohibits the unauthorized interception and divulgence of
radio communications, including cellular calls. This statute is
not limited by its terms to analog radio communications and,
therefore, applies to digital cellular and PCS, as well as to
other commercial mobile radio services such as paging,
specialized mobile services, messaging services, etc. FCC rules
also prohibit the interception of private conversations by
radio scanners, whether or not the content of such radio
communications is divulged (47 C.F.R. 15.9).
Section 705(e)(4) of the Communications Act makes it
illegal for a person to manufacture, assemble, modify, import,
export, sell, or distribute equipment knowing or having reason
to know that it is intended for the unauthorized interception
and divulgence of radio communications. However, the FCC has
only enforced this provision for satellite cable piracy. In
addition to these provisions of the Communications Act and FCC
regulations, the Electronic Communications Protection Act, (18
U.S.C. 2511 et seq. (1986) (ECPA)), also prohibits the
unauthorized interception or disclosure of cellular and other
radio communications. Under ECPA, the manufacture, assembly,
possession, sale or use of scanning devices which are
``primarily useful'' for surreptitious interception and are
sent through interstate mail are prohibited. ECPA is the
principal statute used to prosecute unlawful interceptions.
ECPA prohibits knowingly advertising interstate for any device
``primarily useful'' for the surreptitious interception of
electronic communications. See section 2512(1)(c).
While interception of cellular telephone calls is illegal,
it is legal under existing statutes to intercept radio
communications outside of the cellular bands as long as the
communication is not divulged or does not ``benefit'' the
interceptor. For example, people may intercept public safety
communications on emergencies occurring in their vicinity.
Typically, these communications can be intercepted by an off-
the-shelf scanner. Prior to passage of the Telephone Disclosure
and Dispute Resolution Act (TDDRA) (P.L. 102-556, 47 U.S.C.
302(a)), which codified existing section 302 of the
Communications Act of 1934, over 22 brands of scanners were
capable of intercepting the cellular bands. TDDRA, in part, was
designed to decrease the manufacture and availability of
scanning devices capable of intercepting cellular
communications. Under TDDRA, manufacturers are prohibited from
manufacturing scanners that can be ``readily altered'' to
intercept cellular communications. FCC Rule 15.121 defines
``readily altered.'' Specifically, existing section 302(b) of
the Communications Act of 1934 prohibits the manufacture,
import, or sale of scanning devices that are capable of
intercepting cellular calls, or of being ``readily altered''
for such interception. In section 302(d), Congress required the
FCC to promulgate regulations denying authorization to scanners
that are capable of receiving cellular transmissions. See 47
C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 15.121 and 15.37(f). The Committee finds that
current scanning receivers are not being manufactured in a
manner to effectively prohibit interception of these
frequencies and the current law should not be read to apply to
new technologies.
Hearings
The Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection held a legislative hearing on H.R. 514 on February
3, 1999. The Subcommittee received testimony from: Mr. Thomas
Sugrue, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Chief, Federal
Communications Commission; Captain Joe Hanna, Richardson Texas
Police Department on behalf of the Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials, International Inc.; Ms. Maureen
Finnerty, Associate Director, Parks Operations and Education,
Department of the Interior; Mr. Thomas E. Wheeler, President
and CEO, Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association; Mr.
James X. Dempsey, Senior Staff Counsel, Center for Democracy
and Technology; and Mr. Michael Amarosa, Vice President, Public
Affairs, TruePosition, Inc.
Committee Consideration
On February 10, 1999, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open
markup session and approved H.R. 514 for Full Committee
consideration, without amendment, by a voice vote.
The Full Committee met in open markup session on February
11, 1999, and ordered H.R. 514 reported to the House, without
amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
Roll Call Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House requires
the Committee to list the recorded votes on the motion to
report legislation and amendments thereto. There were no
recorded votes taken in connection with ordering H.R. 514
reported. A motion by Mr. Bliley to order H.R. 514 reported to
the House was agreed to by a voice vote, a quorum being
present.
Committee Oversight Findings
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee held a legislative
hearing and made findings that are reflected in this report.
Committee on Government Reform Oversight Findings
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, no oversight findings have been
submitted to the Committee by the Committee on Government
Reform.
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures
In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R.
514, the Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act of 1999, results in
no new or increased budget authority, entitlement authority, or
tax expenditures or revenues.
Committee Cost Estimate
The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Congressional Budget Office Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, February 22, 1999.
Hon. Tom Bliley,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 514, the Wireless
Privacy Enhancement Act of 1999.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Kim Cawley
(for federal costs), Hester Grippando (for revenues), and Jean
Wooster (for the private-sector impact).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 514--Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act of 1999
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 514 would have no
significant effect on the federal budget. Because the bill
would establish new criminal penalties and thus could increase
receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. H.R. 514
contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect the
budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. The bill would
impose a new private-sector mandate, but CBO estimates the
direct cost to industry of complying with the bill would fall
well below the statutory threshold for private-sector mandates.
H.R. 514 would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to
prohibit modifying any equipment used to communicate
electronically in any matter that would not comply with
regulations affecting electronic eavesdropping. The bill would
direct the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prepare
regulations to deny the authorization to use FCC equipment for
certain scanning receivers that may be capable of unauthorized
interception of communication transmissions. Based on
information from the FCC, CBO estimates that these regulations
would cost less than $500,000 to promulgate, assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts. Furthermore, under
current law the FCC is authorized to collect fees from the
telecommunications industry sufficient to offset the cost of
its regulatory program. Therefore, CBO estimates that the net
budgetary effect of this provision would be negligible.
The bill also would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to
impose criminal penalties for intercepting, publishing, or
divulging a communication that is not authorized. CBO estimates
that this provision would have a negligible effect on revenues.
The bill would direct the FCC to investigate alleged violations
of this portion of the act and to enforce this provision
through forfeiture penalties. Under current law, any
enforcement costs that the agency incurs are offset by fees
charged to the industries that the FCC regulates. As a result,
we estimate that this provision would not result in any
significant net cost to the federal government.
H.R. 514 would impose a new private-sector mandate on
manufacturers, importers, sellers, and those who modify
scanning receivers. The bill would expand the FCC's criteria
for certifying equipment before it can be imported or marketed.
Based on information provided by the leading manufacturer of
scanning receivers and the FCC, CBO estimates that the direct
cost of complying with H.R. 514 would fall well below the
statutory threshold for private-sector mandates ($100 million
in 1996, adjusted annually for inflation).
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Kim Cawley for
federal costs, Hester Grippando for revenues, and Jean Wooster
for the private-sector impact. This estimate was approved by
Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget
Analysis.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that the
Constitutional authority for this legislation is provided in
Article I, section 8, clause 3, which grants Congress the power
to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several
States, and with the Indian tribes.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 designates the short title of the bill as the
``Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act of 1999.''
Section 2. Commerce in electronic eavesdropping devices
Subsection 2(a) extends the prohibition in section 302(b)
of the Communications Act of 1934 to ``modifying'' scanning
devices. While the Committee believes that ``modifying'' is
already covered by the prohibition against ``manufacturing''
non-compliant scanners, the legislation makes the manufacturing
prohibition explicit to prevent any misreading of the statute.
The Committee does not intend to prohibit amateurs from
modifying linear amplifiers after purchase, as permitted by
Commission rules, to allow the devices to operate in the
amateur 12-meter and 10-meter bands. Nor does the Committee
intend that section 2(a) prohibit amateurs from building or
modifying one amplifier per year to enable this capability, as
also permitted by Commission rules. Likewise, the Committee
does not intend that this section be interpreted in a manner
that permits the Commission to take actions against an amateur
operator who is operating within the terms of his or her
license.
Finally, the Committee does not intend that Section 2(a) be
interpreted in a manner that discourages manufacturers or
dealers of amateur equipment from providing amateur licensees
with information about permissible modifications of
transceivers to enable them to transmit and receive on Military
Affiliate Radio Service and the Civil Air Patrol, to the extent
such transmission and reception is permissible under 18 U.S.C.
2511(g) or other statutes. The Committee expects that the new
regulations required under Section 2 will preserve the ability
of amateurs to modify transceivers for the legitimate purposes
discussed above.
Subsection 2(b) makes amendments to section 302(d) of the
Communications Act of 1934. Subsection 2(b) amends paragraph
302(d)(1) to expand its scope to cover new communications
technologies such as PCS and protected specialized mobile radio
and paging services. It also requires the Commission to deny
equipment authorization to scanners that are capable of being
equipped with certain decoders. While the Committee does not
intend to hamper the inclusion of consumer-friendly features on
radio scanners such as external audio jacks, manufacturers
should design scanners with ports that the manufacturer does
not anticipate can be used: (1) to equip the scanner with a
decoder that can convert digital cellular, personal
communications services, or protected specialized mobile radio
services to analog voice audio; (2) to convert protected paging
services to alphanumeric text; or (3) to otherwise decrypt
radio transmissions for the purposes of unauthorized
interception. Thus, after the enactment of the Wireless Privacy
Enhancement Act, manufacturers will be under an obligation to
design scanners with consumer-friendly features that the
manufacturer does not anticipate can be used to equip such
scanners with prohibited decoders.
The Committee notes that nothing in this bill is intended
to impede the development and deployment of scanning receivers
designed as an integral part of a licensed wireless
communications station or wireless communications system, or
designed as communications test equipment not available to the
general public.
Subsection 2(b) amends and replaces paragraph 302(d)(2) of
the Communications Act of 1934 with a new provision providing
the Commission with the authority to prescribe rules to enhance
the privacy of users of frequencies shared by commercial
services and the public safety community. Subsection 2(b) also
adds a new paragraph 302(d)(3) that requires that the
Commission consider requiring that scanning receivers be
manufactured in a manner that prevents any tampering or
alteration by the user that permits the device to be used
unlawfully for interception or divulgence of radio
communications. By this provision, the Committee intends that
the order adopting the regulations reflect on the record a
discussion of possible means for manufacturers to prevent
tampering or alteration of scanners for such illegal use. New
section 302(d)(4) requires the Commission to consider requiring
scanning manufacturers to include warning labels on scanners
notifying users of prohibited uses. The Committee, likewise,
intends that the order adopting the regulations reflect on the
record a discussion of the benefits of warning labels. New
section 302(d)(5) adds a definition of ``protected'' to the
statute to be used in conjunction with the amendments made by
this bill to paragraph 302(d)(1).
Subsection 2(b) recognizes that some frequencies available
for commercial mobile services are shared with public safety
and other private wireless users. Again, nothing in this
legislation is intended to impede the development and
deployment of scanning receivers designedas an integral part of
a licensed wireless communications station or wireless communications
system, or designed as communications test equipment not available to
the general public.
Subsection 2(c) requires the Commission to revise its
rules, within 90 days, to implement the changes made by section
2. For purposes of subsection 2(b) and the implementing
regulations required by subsection 2(c), the Committee expects
that the Commission will provide an effective date to the
regulations that will provide an adequate transition period for
scanner manufacturers to comply, so that scanner manufacturers
or distributors are able to sell their current inventory.
Therefore, the Committee expects the Commission to reflect on
the record of the rulemaking required by Section 2, a
discussion of the manufacturers' normal product development and
production cycles, in determining effective dates for the
relevant requirements within the regulations, while bearing in
mind the overall purpose of the bill to increase the privacy of
wireless users. Further, the Committee expects the Commission
to promulgate regulations under paragraph 2(d)(2) which ensure
that any privacy enhancement measures resulting from such
regulations do not interfere with or impede the otherwise
proper use of radio scanners for reception of public safety and
other allowed frequencies under law.
Section 3. Unauthorized interception or publication of communications
Subsection 3(a) makes amendments to section 705 of the
Communications Act of 1934. Paragraph (1) alters the heading
provided to section 705. Paragraph (2) strikes ``except as
authorized by chapter 119, title 18, United States Code'' from
the first sentence of section 705(a) of the Communications Act.
This is later addressed by paragraph (4).
Paragraph (3) eliminates the requirement that a violation
of section 705(a) requires both interception and divulgence.
The bill separates this provision into intentional interception
or divulgence and, thus, the intentional interception itself is
illegal. Similarly, intentional divulgence alone--divulging the
contents of a radio communication knowing that it was
intercepted without the sender's authorization--likewise is
illegal. Intentional divulgence is actionable under this
paragraph whether or not the party divulging the communication
was the same party that intercepted the communication.
Paragraph (4) preserves the authorization of certain
interceptions or disclosures provided in Chapter 119 of Title
18, United States Code. That chapter governs wire and
electronic communications interception and interception of oral
communications. Section 2511 of that chapter provides a number
of exceptions to the chapter's prohibitions on interception.
The majority of these exceptions relate to government
interception. However, subsection 2511(g) provides a number of
broad exceptions for the interception by private parties of
radio communications, including those that are transmitted: (a)
over a system that is configured for ready access by the
general public; (b) by any station for the use of the general
public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or
persons in distress; (c) by any governmental, law enforcement,
civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety
communications system that is readily accessible to the general
public; (d) by a station operating in the amateur, citizens
band (CB); and, (e) by any marine or aeronautical
communications system.
Because the Committee preserved the Chapter 119 exceptions
in its amendment of section 705(a) of the Communications Act,
the Committee does not intend for the Commission or any other
enforcement agency to investigate or fine parties for the
interceptions authorized by Chapter 119. Therefore, the
Committee does not intend for uses of scanning receivers and
receiving radios such as short-wave radios, that are consistent
with the section 2511(g) exceptions to be investigated or fined
under section 705(a).
Paragraph (5) increases the penalties for violating section
705(a) to be consistent with those under ECPA, relating to the
interception or divulgence prohibition. Currently, the fine for
willful violation is $2,000, 6 months in jail, or both; under
ECPA, the penalties can be increased based upon repeated
violations. This paragraph (5), therefore, provides an
additional penalty option.
Paragraphs (6) and (7) make appropriate changes to
paragraphs 705(e)(3) and (4) of the Communications Act to be
consistent with the changes made by paragraph 3(a)(3) of the
bill.
Paragraph (8) adds a new paragraph 705(e)(7) of the
Communications Act of 1934 which requires the FCC to
investigate and take action, notwithstanding any other
investigations by other agencies or departments, on possible
violations of the Communications Act or Commission rules on
wireless communications privacy. With regards to the
responsibility for enforcement under this paragraph, the
Committee does not intend to preclude the Department of Justice
or the Federal Bureau of Investigation from initiating and
conducting separate or parallel investigations of allegations
of violations of Chapter 119 of Title 18 of the United States
Code.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO
PART I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 302. DEVICES WHICH INTERFERE WITH RADIO RECEPTION.
(a) * * *
(b) No person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for
sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems,
or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations
promulgated pursuant to this section, or modify any such
device, equipment, or system in any manner that causes such
device, equipment, or system to fail to comply with such
regulations.
* * * * * * *
[(d)(1) Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this
subsection, the Commission shall prescribe and make effective
regulations denying equipment authorization (under part 15 of
title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any other part of
that title) for any scanning receiver that is capable of--
[(A) receiving transmissions in the frequencies
allocated to the domestic cellular radio
telecommunications service,
[(B) readily being altered by the user to receive
transmissions in such frequencies, or
[(C) being equipped with decoders that convert
digital cellular transmissions to analog voice audio.
[(2) Beginning 1 year after the effective date of the
regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (1), no receiver
having the capabilities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or
(C) of paragraph (1), as such capabilities are defined in such
regulations, shall be manufactured in the United States or
imported for use in the United States.]
(d) Equipment Authorization Regulations.--
(1) Privacy protections required.--The Commission
shall prescribe regulations, and review and revise such
regulations as necessary in response to subsequent
changes in technology or behavior, denying equipment
authorization (under part 15 of title 47, Code of
Federal Regulations, or any other part of that title)
for any scanning receiver that is capable of--
(A) receiving transmissions in the
frequencies that are allocated to the domestic
cellular radio telecommunications service or
the personal communications service;
(B) readily being altered to receive
transmissions in such frequencies;
(C) being equipped with decoders that--
(i) convert digital domestic cellular
radio telecommunications service,
personal communications service, or
protected specialized mobile radio
service transmissions to analog voice
audio; or
(ii) convert protected paging service
transmissions to alphanumeric text; or
(D) being equipped with devices that
otherwise decode encrypted radio transmissions
for the purposes of unauthorized interception.
(2) Privacy protections for shared frequencies.--The
Commission shall, with respect to scanning receivers
capable of receiving transmissions in frequencies that
are used by commercial mobile services and that are
shared by public safety users, examine methods, and may
prescribe such regulations as may be necessary, to
enhance the privacy of users of such frequencies.
(3) Tampering prevention.--In prescribing regulations
pursuant to paragraph (1), the Commission shall
consider defining ``capable of readily being altered''
to require scanning receivers to be manufactured in a
manner that effectively precludes alteration of
equipment features and functions as necessary to
prevent commerce in devices that may be used unlawfully
to intercept or divulge radio communication.
(4) Warning labels.--In prescribing regulations under
paragraph (1), the Commission shall consider requiring
labels on scanning receivers warning of the
prohibitions in Federal law on intentionally
intercepting or divulging radio communications.
(5) Definitions.--As used in this subsection, the
term ``protected'' means secured by an electronic
method that is not published or disclosed except to
authorized users, as further defined by Commission
regulation.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 705. UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION OR PUBLICATION OF COMMUNICATIONS.
(a) [Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18, United
States Code, no person] No person receiving, assisting in
receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any
interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall
divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport,
effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels
of transmission or reception, (1)to any person other than the
addressee, his agent, or attorney, (2) to a person employed or
authorized to forward such communication to its destination, (3) to
proper accounting or distributing officers of the various communicating
centers over which the communication may be passed, (4) to the master
of a ship under whom he is serving, (5) in response to a subpena issued
by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (6) on demand of other lawful
authority. No person not being authorized by the sender shall
intentionally intercept any radio communication [and] or divulge or
publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning
of such intercepted communication to any person. No person not being
entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or
foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any
information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit
of another not entitled thereto. No person having received any
intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the
contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication
(or any part thereof) knowing that such communication was intercepted,
shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport,
effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use
such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own
benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. [This
section shall not apply to the receiving, divulging, publishing, or
utilizing the contents of any radio communication which is transmitted
by any station for the use of the general public, which relates to
ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress, or which is
transmitted by an amateur radio station operator or by a citizens band
radio operator.] Nothing in this subsection prohibits an interception
or disclosure of a communication as authorized by chapter 119 of title
18, United States Code.
* * * * * * *
(e)(1) Any person who willfully violates subsection (a) shall
be [fined not more than $2,000 or] imprisoned for not more than
6 months, or fined under title 18, United States Code, or both.
* * * * * * *
(3)(A) Any person aggrieved by [any violation] any receipt,
interception, divulgence, publication, or utilization of any
communication in violation of subsection (a) or paragraph (4)
of this subsection may bring a civil action in a United States
district court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction.
* * * * * * *
(4) Any person who manufactures, assembles, modifies,
imports, exports, sells, or distributes any electronic,
mechanical, or other device or equipment, knowing or having
reason to know that the device or equipment is primarily of
assistance in the unauthorized decryption of satellite cable
programming, or direct-to-home satellite services, or is
intended for [any other activity prohibited by subsection (a)]
any receipt, interception, divulgence, publication, or
utilization of any communication in violation of subsection
(a), shall be fined not more than $500,000 for each violation,
or imprisoned for not more than 5 years for each violation, or
both. For purposes of all penalties and remedies established
for violations of this paragraph, the prohibited activity
established herein as it applies to each such device shall be
deemed a separate violation.
* * * * * * *
(7) Notwithstanding any other investigative or enforcement
activities of any other Federal agency, the Commission shall
investigate alleged violations of this section and may proceed
to initiate action under section 503 of this Act to impose
forfeiture penalties with respect to such violation upon
conclusion of the Commission's investigation.
* * * * * * *