United States v. Shriver
989 F.2d 898
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Case Number 92-1510
Before Chief Judge Bauer, Circuit Judge Manion, and District Judge Moody
Decided on November 23, 1992

Relevancy of the Case: Is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act applicable to a transmission intercepted by a modified descrambler?

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522.
• The Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605(a)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• In a previous order, the district court acquitted the defendant for violating Sections 2511 and 2512. The government has appealed against this decision.
• The defendant allegedly manufactured and sold electronic devices known as “modified descramblers.” These devices allowed consumers to watch paid content for free without authorisation or subscription.
• These devices were similar to the home satellite television descrambler provided to subscribe to paid content. However, they were modified to allow the decryption of the encrypted content received through satellite, for which the users had to pay a premium.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The appellant’s counsel argued that it is a factual issue and needs expert testimony. Therefore, a trial was necessary before acquitting the defendant for violating Sections 2511 and 2512.
• The defendant’s counsel submitted that the language and the legislative history of the wiretap laws suggest that Congress did not intend wiretap laws to cover modified descramblers.

Opinion of the Bench

• The legislative history of a statute only weighs importance when it is unclear or ambiguous. Sections 2511 and 2512 are clear. Therefore, the legislative history is immaterial.
• The intentional use of modified descramblers falls within the scope of Section 2511. Satellite transmissions to home satellite dishes are “electronic communication”, as per the wiretap laws.
• A factual inquiry is needed regarding the actual design of the device. Without such inquiry, it would be impossible to ascertain the same under Section 2512.

Final Decision

• The court reversed the district court’s judgement and remanded the case for trial.