Revised FCC Form 605 Will Ask Applicants “the Felony Question”

[KE0GXN]

I would hope the FCC's focus would be on "radio" related crimes when it comes to an applicant's character, whether it be a felony or misdemeanor.

With that said, the question is on there and it will be on there for the foreseeable future. All one can do is simply not commit felonies and you would have nothing to worry about......is that asking too much?

 

[SCPD]

.
.
(I had to move my rebuttal from the other open'd site on this subject--- after I wrote it all out, and everything... Kevin, You closed it !... )
.
.
_______________________________________________________________.
.
Well, MTS, I am going respectful disagree to many of your comments.
.
.
What I wrote was painted with a broad brush of sarcasm and by nature I tend to get facetious. I'll will not concede any sympathy for your friend, however. At 19 he was a man, and what he did- killing a family is something he must bear the judgement of society for the rest of his life. You and others may forgiven him over time, but can't. Yes, its a terrible he has to bear it, but he is still alive--- his victims can't bear *Anything.*
.
In my life I have run across such people who have made grave errors in judgement. I do not, and will not- include anyone of them in my circle of friends, family or associates. And you are correct- I have never committed a felony- at least knowingly-- the only traffic ticket I have ever received is one for making a 'right turn on red' in a city that didn't allow them. My FICO score is 826.
.
Because I live like this, I hold one of the highest security clearances in the land- I can walk into (practically) any government facility unquestion'd- I have passed so many background investigations that it boggles my mind to what depth my life has been- and continues to be look'd into.
.
I am not bragging- I am just making my point that if you screw up, there are somethings that can't be undone. You may be forgiven my many, but some people, who play by, and set the rules, get pretty tick'd off when their values get rubb'd in their noses, and innocent people suffer. If, as in my case, you want to move in certain circles, you had better prepare for it early, early on.
.
One of the most powerful life lessons I every learned was as a teenager. A simple lecture by my father (a decorated Vietnam aviator, and now a retired Air Force colonel)--
.
"Lauri, if you ever mess up, I will not bail you out"
"You want respect? to pursue your dreams?... don't mess up!"
.
I thank him to this day for that 'tuff love.'
.
_________________________________________
.
I had to take a couple course in law for what I do.... very eye opening stuff. I thought I would be bored- I was anything but. One thing that sticks saliently with me was that as Americans, we have a Constitutional Right to disobey any law we think violates our rights-- BUT we must be prepared to accept the consequences ! If for some Crazy As*'d reason I decide to start blowing dope, I accept the responsibity that my life will instantly be screw'd. But its not society's fault that the laws are 'unfair'-- that's just how it is (a bad analogy since my home is in Colorado- but its still federally illegal and don't even think what that would do to my clearances.) If there's a law you don't like, work to change it- disobey it at your peril.
.
.
Okay, enuff of this- it has only broad applications to the original 605 Form topic. And anyone thinking I'm a prude? -- Hardly. Just re-read what I wrote originally this time thru the lens of sarcasm
Now, go have a drink, but have your designated driver (I do)--- and a Happy New Year!
.
.
................................CF

 

[MTS2000des]

.
What I wrote was painted with a broad brush of sarcasm and by nature I tend to get facetious.

That's all hyperbole, I get that. But you went after the O/P, who expressed his interest in exiting the hobby. Than it became a witch hunt which, typical of today's Internet warriors, took on a life of it's own. I was trying to keep it ON TOPIC and not about an individual.

.
I'll will not concede any sympathy for your friend, however.

Wan't expecting you or anyone to. Could care less if you did. And he wasn't my friend, he was a class mate. I spent about as much time with him as you did any given person you went to high school with.

.
In my life I have run across such people who have made grave errors in judgement. I do not, and will not- include anyone of them in my circle of friends, family or associates.

You must enjoy being by yourself.

.
And you are correct- I have never committed a felony- at least knowingly--

Keyword there. You can't honestly say you never have never done anything that amounts to a felony throughout your life. Because all your internet false bravado aside, you know deep down inside, you have done something that could, if it came to light under the right circumstances in the right forum, put you behind bars.

.
My FICO score is 826.

BFD. Millions of others are at that or better. No one is giving out loans here.

.
Because I live like this, I hold one of the highest security clearances in the land- I can walk into (practically) any government facility unquestion'd- I have passed so many background investigations that it boggles my mind to what depth my life has been- and continues to be look'd into.

don't know you, don't really care. Anyone can say anything they want on the Internet, and it must be true...

.

I am not bragging-

Yes you are. And it's rather unseemly. This isn't a dating site. No one really cares. Honestly, they don't. Everyone on forums claims to be "special", when in reality, no one is better than anyone else. That's the cold hard reality.

.
I am just making my point that if you screw up, there are somethings that can't be undone.

This is sadly true. And only because we as a human race insist on believing that one human is superior to another. One day we will collectively figure out two points:

1)-it doesn't really matter
2)-no one is a superior human than another

Or we'll kill each other fighting it out.

.
One thing that sticks saliently with me was that as Americans, we have a Constitutional Right to disobey any law we think violates our rights-- BUT we must be prepared to accept the consequences !

All of the freedoms we take for granted were the result of others sacrificing themselves for what they believed in, standing up to what was a corrupt system, and paying for it with the freedom, and their lives.

Are you prepared to sacrifice yourself so others may be free? Or are you one of those guys/gals who just wants to hide and let someone else pay that price for you?

You can only pick one.

.
Okay, enuff of this- it has only broad applications to the original 605 Form topic. And anyone thinking I'm a prude? --

No. I just think it's absurd. Aside, the ramifications for the FCC are a nightmare. Remember, this is the same agency that gave up on vanity license fees citing the collection were too time and resource consuming.

If they have to start vetting applications, this means someone (a records clerk) has to manually verify every application that is red lighted for review, and this could take YEARS resulting in an application backlog. I could go on an on how record clerks would have to get into things like offender name candidating, requesting copies of cases from court clerks, etc. All of this equates to time and money. Remember, today's FCC is all about selling/leasing RF spectrum to the wireless telecom cartels, not being a law enforcement background agency.

How does the public benefit? It doesn't. As I stated before, it will just be another way for the government to disenfranchise citizens. This is a ham radio license we are talking about, not a pistol permit or a license to practice law (and there are plenty of felons who were able to pass the bar and practice).

 

[AK9R]

...I am just making my point that if you screw up, there are somethings that can't be undone.

Every decision one makes in life has consequences. Some of those consequences stick with you for the rest of your life.

Sadly, personal responsibility is a trait not taught very well these days and some people think they can make bad decisions without incurring any penalty.

The facts are that the current Form 605 asks if you have a felony record and if you answer "yes", you have to provide the FCC with information about that record so they can make a decision about your license. Those matters are between the person filing the Form 605 and the FCC. The rest of us are merely bystanders in the process.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

A lot of folks in this country are just a paycheck away from being homeless, and unfortunately being homeless in itself is a criminal condition in this country. Not saying the homeless are felons, but add to it bad decisions and you will become a felon.

I just had my credit card skimmed at a fancy restaurant here in town, The gal who took it to the back room to be skimmed has committed a felony . Not sure what motivated her to pass on my credit card and identity to a gang of gasoline thieves . Maybe she had a child to feed, rent past due, who knows. I will prosecute if it goes that far. I really have no choice, others got scammed as well.

Then we have the white collar crooks, who can steal legally. Like the ones convincing my 93yo mother to buy $560 of their worthless on line investment newsletters in the past 6 months.

 

[prcguy]

If I caught a woman skimming my credit card info I would have her put in prison and would put her toddler to work paying off the debt.

After she pays her dues then she can get a ham license, I don't care. Just don't touch my credit card again or I'll confiscate her ham radios, and they better be high end models.

Any questions?
prcguy

A lot of folks in this country are just a paycheck away from being homeless, and unfortunately being homeless in itself is a criminal condition in this country. Not saying the homeless are felons, but add to it bad decisions and you will become a felon.

I just had my credit card skimmed at a fancy restaurant here in town, The gal who took it to the back room to be skimmed has committed a felony . Not sure what motivated her to pass on my credit card and identity to a gang of gasoline thieves . Maybe she had a child to feed, rent past due, who knows. I will prosecute if it goes that far. I really have no choice, others got scammed as well.

Then we have the white collar crooks, who can steal legally. Like the ones convincing my 93yo mother to buy $560 of their worthless on line investment newsletters in the past 6 months.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

If I caught a woman skimming my credit card info I would have her put in prison and would put her toddler to work paying off the debt.

After she pays her dues then she can get a ham license, I don't care. Just don't touch my credit card again or I'll confiscate her ham radios, and they better be high end models.

Any questions?
prcguy

No questions.

Thankfully it was a Japanese Steakhouse, so I can hold out for a high end ICOM receiver versus a Baofeng, had I gone to the Chinese takee outee place at the food court.

 

[SCPD]

Wow MTS-- I must have touch'd on something deep and personal.
.
As far as attacking the original poster I didn't, any more than anyone else. As far as he is concerned, the very fact he mentioned his felonious past is invitation enuff for criticism... as others here seems to also feel. If for no other reason- this is a validation for why such a question is valid on a federal form.
.
Also as to the remaind'r of your comments, about the topic in question, or me personally, I will dismiss them as noise from someone venting their spleen, promoted by some private issue, real or imaginary. You neither know me, nor I you.. so lets keep our punch's above the belt, shall we...and drop any further exchanges.
.
Shake hands? Amigo?
.
.
And a Happy New Year to you and your's.....
.
.
.
................................CF

 

[KK4JUG]

CF, don't worry about it. It's unbelievable how many people in this forum have chips on their shoulders (and that comment is not aimed at anyone in particular).

 

[zz0468]

I know of several cases and individuals where the public was not served well after felons received ham licenses, and looking back with 20/20 vision, you could sit there and say anybody could have seen it coming.

Based on the OP of the other thread's publicly available info, he could well be another one. I wouldn't issue him a licence.

It always complicates things when a few people disregard the rules everyone else has to abide by. Now EVERYONE has to deal with the balance between freedom and security, and not everyone seems to be capable of doing that without getting emotional wedgie.

 

[MTS2000des]

Wow MTS-- I must have touch'd on something deep and personal.

Nothing personal, but whenever someone attests they have never done anything wrong at any point in their life, I call B.S. Because every living soul has.

The difference is some have been caught, and paid for it. Others never got caught. Some have yet to be caught. No one is perfect. Not even you.

You should try harder to not place yourself above others. Because you aren't. I am sure you're a great person, but no need to believe you are greater.

You neither know me, nor I you.. so lets keep our punch's above the belt, shall we...and drop any further exchanges.

Shake hands? Amigo?

I agree. Have a happy and safe 2018.

I know of several cases and individuals where the public was not served well after felons received ham licenses, and looking back with 20/20 vision, you could sit there and say anybody could have seen it coming.

Just as many "non-felon" hams if not more create problems on the air. The answer to dealing with lids is well..deal with them. The same mantra was given about no-code technicians back in 1991. Guess what, most of the F-bomb dropping, profanity and drunked laced wind bags are all extra class "legacy" hams.

Based on the OP of the other thread's publicly available info, he could well be another one. I wouldn't issue him a licence.

I don't know the guy. If he was convicted of a crime involving interference with public safety communications, or any offense in which radio was utilized to facilitate a criminal offense, than yes, this would be reasonable to deny/set aside a renewal or new application for any FCC licensee, part 97 or otherwise. But as you say, this is between him and the FCC, should they choose to pursue it.

But you also have to understand that this costs money. The FCC is not going to spend the money to red light review every part 97 application. It isn't in their best interest to do so anymore than they decided to stop dealing with vanity call sign fees, citing it took too many resources away from, well, you know, taking AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobiles' big checks.

If you are that concerned about those folks around you being bad operators, than become an O.O. or mentor. That would work wonders to improve the quality of operators in your area.

 

[N4GIX]

I don't see how the FCC can make this information public record as most states keep criminal record information unavailable to the general public. Making this part of the public record opens up the possibility of "witch hunts" within the ranks of amateur radio.

In addition to sending a letter of explanation regarding the circumstances of the applicant's felony conviction, they may also send a separate letter asking for privacy protection and stating clearly their reasons for the request.

Actually, I just ran across a very well written and timely synopsis of how the FCC is handling the "felony" applications:
https://www.laurelvec.com/didyouknow/DYK - Felony Applications.pdf

 

[KE0GXN]

Every decision one makes in life has consequences. Some of those consequences stick with you for the rest of your life.

Sadly, personal responsibility is a trait not taught very well these days and some people think they can make bad decisions without incurring any penalty.

The facts are that the current Form 605 asks if you have a felony record and if you answer "yes", you have to provide the FCC with information about that record so they can make a decision about your license. Those matters are between the person filing the Form 605 and the FCC. The rest of us are merely bystanders in the process.

I couldn't agree more. The fact is unfortunately, nobody wants to except responsibility for their actions anymore.....

Welcome to 2018 and beyond.

 

[zz0468]

Just as many "non-felon" hams if not more create problems on the air.

Probably lots more non-felons causing problems on the ham bands.

The point I'm trying to make is, at some level there is potential benefit to checking although, aside from the self reporting, there isn't a good mechanism at this time to follow up.

The specific cases that I bring up, where I wouldn't give a license if it were in my power to do so, involve not just a felony or other crime, but cases where the illicit use of radios was an integral part of the crime. Jamming public safety channels, for example.

Why, after knowing someone has programmed up a radio solely for the purpose of transmitting fake distress calls, should they be allowed to touch a transmitter again? Society, at that point, should pick up it's collective big stick and point it at the guy and say "NO! YOU can't get a ham license".

The answer to dealing with lids is well..deal with them.

Hopefully, I've made it clear enough that I'm not referring to mere "lids". They're easy enough to deal with.

I don't know the guy. If he was convicted of a crime involving interference with public safety communications, or any offense in which radio was utilized to facilitate a criminal offense, than yes, this would be reasonable to deny/set aside a renewal or new application for any FCC licensee, part 97 or otherwise.

Yes, As a matter of fact. 5 minutes of Google-fu brings up newspaper articles, etc. for the guy. Interfering with public safety systems...

I'm guess not sure I understand the point of the original post asking about it, you gotta know people are going to look.

But as you say, this is between him and the FCC, should they choose to pursue it.

Indeed. Hence the question on the form. Hence the OP's (of the other thread) question, hence the debate, etc.

I think we've come full circle.

If you are that concerned about those folks around you being bad operators...

Time was, I DID have to deal with a few bad operators. Not anymore. Ø

 

[MTS2000des]

The point I'm trying to make is, at some level there is potential benefit to checking although, aside from the self reporting, there isn't a good mechanism at this time to follow up.

and that is the real issue. The FCC lacks the resources to properly follow-up. Records clerks don't come cheap. One local LE agency is migrating to a new RMS, and because name canadating is so jacked up, it is going to mean starting fresh.

The FCC doesn't want to be in this kind of business. There is no public (read MONEY) value in enforcing any "no felons" disqualification in ham radio any more than there is from actual real enforcement of those lids on 147.435 in L.A. They are certainly fully aware of the continued violations of part 97 and just simply aren't interested in doing anything.

As was mentioned by an FCC official recently at IWCE, "we have to pick our enforcement battles carefully as we only have a few resources available". Skimming through the EB releases: they go for the big fish: broadcast, telecoms and utility companies. Ham radio operators just aren't worth their time.

The specific cases that I bring up, where I wouldn't give a license if it were in my power to do so, involve not just a felony or other crime, but cases where the illicit use of radios was an integral part of the crime. Jamming public safety channels, for example.

If they were convicted of a crime related to this, than this certainly could be a disqualifier to hold any FCC license.

Why, after knowing someone has programmed up a radio solely for the purpose of transmitting fake distress calls, should they be allowed to touch a transmitter again? Society, at that point, should pick up it's collective big stick and point it at the guy and say "NO! YOU can't get a ham license".

Don't disagree with this, but this should be a case by case basis, not a broadbrush of "you sold some weed when you were 17, therefore you can't get your ham ticket at 45".

Maybe asking a more specific qualification would be more appropriate such as:

"Has the applicant ever been convicted in any state/military of criminal misuse of a telecommunication service including obstructing, interfering or unauthorized access to radio telephone communications systems or networks?"

I think this would be more germane and narrow down the screening to those you seek to keep off the air.

Yes, As a matter of fact. 5 minutes of Google-fu brings up newspaper articles, etc. for the guy. Interfering with public safety systems...

Has he actually been convicted for interfering with PS systems? Before dragging one's name into public shame, I would make sure all are facts verifiable with a certified public data source (e.g, a court clerk record) not Google searches alone.

Don't know him from Adam's house cat but too often people are quick to name drop and throw mud citing "Google" and "Newspaper articles" many of which are full of erroneous information.

I could not find any public record showing adjudication for such an offense. Doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[zz0468]

The FCC doesn't want to be in this kind of business. There is no public (read MONEY) value in enforcing any "no felons" disqualification in ham radio...

Oh, I know that. And I'm not saying that felons should be prohibited from getting licensed. I am merely saying that there are cases where, in fact, prohibiting an individual would be in the public interest.

Don't disagree with this, but this should be a case by case basis, not a broadbrush of "you sold some weed when you were 17, therefore you can't get your ham ticket at 45".

Of course not. That would make no sense.

Maybe asking a more specific qualification would be more appropriate such as:

"Has the applicant ever been convicted in any state/military of criminal misuse of a telecommunication service including obstructing, interfering or unauthorized access to radio telephone communications systems or networks?"

I think this would be more germane and narrow down the screening to those you seek to keep off the air.

Perhaps that's what the question should be, but then again, depending on what's being applied for, maybe it IS the FCC's intent to leave in place a mechanism to cause them to further screen someone should they so desire.

Has he actually been convicted for interfering with PS systems? Before dragging one's name into public shame, I would make sure all are facts verifiable with a certified public data source (e.g, a court clerk record) not Google searches alone.

The court records are certainly accessible.

I could not find any public record showing adjudication for such an offense. Doesn't mean it isn't there.

Not all publicly accessible documents show up in a Google search.

 

[Token]

Don't disagree with this, but this should be a case by case basis, not a broadbrush of "you sold some weed when you were 17, therefore you can't get your ham ticket at 45".

Has anyone suggested anyone else is being so broadbrushed? It appears the FCC IS handling these on a case by case basis. They ask the basic question and give the respondent a specific period of time to provide the details so that a decision can be made.

The form simply asks a question. A question that has been germane for decades, even if it was not on the form. In the past several decades there have been hams who have lost their licenses simply to felony convictions that have come to light after the fact. And there have been hams who have been looked at and allowed to keep their license even though they have a felony conviction.

This has been used by people wanting to make other people have a bad time. Something like: I know Joe Bag of Microphones has a ham license, and I also know he has a felony conviction, just because I don't like him I will drop a dime on him to the FCC.

Let me reiterate, the question has always been there to be asked, it has just not always been on the form.

Maybe asking a more specific qualification would be more appropriate such as:

"Has the applicant ever been convicted in any state/military of criminal misuse of a telecommunication service including obstructing, interfering or unauthorized access to radio telephone communications systems or networks?"

And that is too narrow. What about people defrauding others in the process of radio sales or services? What about people who have used social engineering to get close to kids for nefarious purposes? Etc.

Why narrow the question down at all?

Ask the question as it currently exist, get the details, decide on that information if the past event should be considered at all.

What about the fact that the same form is used across multiple services? This would result in different question sets, for example past smuggling operations when considering licensing for aviation and maritime services. Of course, service specific forms could be generated, with service specific question sets, but why bother when the process I outlined above, and apparently the process as it exists today, will cover the issue?

Don't get me wrong, if the process was that any past felony conviction was an automatic disqualifier regardless of the circumstances of the conviction, I would be agreeing with you whole heartedly. However, I don't see any indication this is the case.

One thing to keep in mind, the FCC is charged with assessing the character of every licensee. This seemingly applies for ANY service licensed. Like it or not that appears to be a fact and has been a loooonng time. While this is most often applied to broadcast services I don't see anything that limits it to that. In the past, based on the lack of character related questions, the FCC appears to have adopted the attitude of "unless someone tells us different a person is assumed to be of sufficient character". Now they are asking ONE question as the beginning of the character assessment process. Seems to me like they are trying to do their job.

As I said above, this whole issue is not new and has been around a long time. There is a pretty interesting paper (Character and Candor Requirement for FCC Licensees) from 1957 discussing the character requirements. Although it is aimed mostly at broadcast licensees it also discusses how this also might impact ham radio, and further goes on to talk, briefly, about how care must be used since at that time ham radio was one possible road to rehabilitation for felons.

T!

 

[magic_lantern]

with marijuana still being illegal at the federal level I hope they start banning all the so called medical marijuana card holders from obtaining any professional license.

anyone here ever have to work side by side with one of these dope fiends.

 

[KK4JUG]

with marijuana still being illegal at the federal level I hope they start banning all the so called medical marijuana card holders from obtaining any professional license.

anyone here ever have to work side by side with one of these dope fiends.

That might be valid. One can probably safely assume they use marijuana in one form or another if they have a card and it's still illegal on the federal level.

 

[SCPD]

There are all degrees of 'character'- and depending on what the societal license is, there are all degrees of acceptable. What is a permissible felony to hold a ham license v.s. a medical license is going to be different. The broad category of asking the applicant "have you ever.... felony"..allows the investigator an opening to inquire deeper into that character. Lie about it is perjury- a character flaw right there.
.
.
Like it or not, Felons, you will be asked those question all your life- excepting a pardon,- you are one for ever.
.
.
Its also naive to think that your associations with known felons can't effect you too. Anyone with certain level security clearances know that you will be question'd - in depth, of any such "associations."
.
"You are known by the company you keep." Unfair?... tell it to the men in suits. (and yes, that extends to the recreation dope smokers- no one is saying I can't hang out with them- but..... that character issue looms always.... )
.
And yes, yes I know- a far far stretch from a ham license inquiry- but this topic is taking on new territory...
.
.
.....................CF
.