Gary McConville wrote:
> My take is that the ARRL is not part of any enforcement and unless
> there was a supoena, then they should stay out of it, irregardless of
> what happened!
> > On Apr 26, 2005, at 6:10 PM, Dan/W4NTI wrote:
> > > You know something guys? That really is a low move from the ARRL.
> > I agree that Ed has a point, but it also represents something of a
> > quandary for the ARRL.
> Since the Amateur Service is supposed to be self-policing -- would
it
> > be right for the ARRL to hold back this information, when it clearly
> > shows someone operating a station out of his licensing limits? To
> > what length should your ARRL dues to spend in order to protect the privacy
> > rights of such a violator?
While I agree with all of the above, the ARRL is not an enforcement
agency, and unless there's something in the rules about the logs being
their property, I believe what they did was an invasion of privacy.
Gary is right, there should have been a suponea!
I have absolutely no problem with the enforcement action, but if I
were one of those whose call appeared, and was subsequently cleared, I
would sue the hell out of the ARRL.
I've written a letter to Bill Sumner on this, and suffice it to say, I
will no longer submit logs to the ARRL.
This is about the 5th time I regret being a life member!
73
Ed
|