Tanner Lovelace
|
2
|
 |
|
06-20-2002 12:55 AM ET (US)
|
|
Edited by author 06-20-2002 12:56 AM
It seems to me the difference here is that Schoenbohm "misrepresented" his felony conviction to the FCC and actively "solicited others, using Amateur Radio, to make ex parte presentations on his behalf, in violation of FCC rules." The ARRL website also makes the statement that "The FCC said his behavior, in combination with his fraud conviction, justified nonrenewal of his ham ticket." (emphasis added). In this particular case, I haven't seen anyone accuse Kevin Mitnick of any of that. On the contrary, it seems he has been fairly forthright about his conviction, which has nothing to do with ham radio.
|
Jay Maynard
|
3
|
 |
|
06-20-2002 09:36 AM ET (US)
|
|
Schoenbohm's conviction didn't have anything to do with ham radio either. Both his and Mitnick's, though, were related to illegal use of telecommunications facilities. Since that's the FCC's area of jurisdiction, it does make some sense. The FCC's policy for many years has been to revoke all licenses, in all services, held by someone whose conduct justifies revocation of any of them; the actions in these cases seems consistent to me.
|