pm@endor.harvard.edu (Paul Mazzarelli) (09/14/86)
============================================================================
The following is from the September 1986 issue of MONITORING
TIMES (Published by Grove Enterprises, Inc. P.O. Box 98, Brasstown,
North Carolina 28902).
This first item is excerpted from a letter by Robert Horvitz,
Government Affairs Liason for The Association of North American
Radio Clubs (ANARC) regarding the Communications Act:
ANARC has called for hearings to discuss the radio provisions of the
bill and to examine alternatives. We've circulated a list of
amendments that would alleviate most of our concerns. We support the
general goal of the bill, but believe that privacy of wireless
communications can best be assured through technology, not by making
criminals out of law-abiding radio users.
Senate staffers acknowledge that our amendments have merit, and
hearings might be useful, but they're not convinced that many people
share our concerns. This is a political process, and SENATORS ARE NOT
GETTING MUCH MAIL PROTESTING THE BILL'S TREATMENT OF RADIO.
YOUR SENATOR MUST HEAR FROM YOU.
CALL, TELEGRAPH, OR SEND A MAILGRAM to your Senator and the Members of
the Senate Judiciary and Commerce Commitees as soon as you get this.
Express your views. Ask for hearings and more time to assess the
bill's consequences. Say whatever you think. But SAY IT NOW!
Otherwise, you could soon be exposed to Federal criminal and civil
liabilities merely by using a scanner.
============================================
(All emphasis in the above is the author's.)
The following is a sample letter to your Senators from the same issue
of Monitoring Times; since they want this passed around to as many
people as possible, they won't mind it being posted in its entirety here:
Senator------------------------
----------------------Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator----------------------:
I am writing to vigorously protest the passage of Senate Bill
2575, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. As written,
substantive portions of the bill are illogical; worse, they reflect
considerable ignorance of the laws of physics and the realities of the
consumer marketplace.
The mobile telephone industry has convinced Congress, and is now
working on the Senate, that cellular mobile telephone calls are
inherently private. They are not. As with other forms of mobile radio
they are--and always have been--readily accessible to casual monitoring
with widely manufactured consumer entertainment radios and even
television sets.
In an apparent effort to boost a lagging marketing program, the
cellular telephone industry's powerful Washington lobby is obviously
attempting to legislate legitimacy to the invalid claim that cellular
mobile telephones are inherently private.
At the present time there are, according to independent
estimates, some 7 million scanners and 19 million shortwave radios
capable of receiving frequencies which would be outlawed by the
pending legislation. Many of these frequencies are assigned on a
shared basis.
Clearly, it is not only impossible to avoid encountering them, it
is necessary in order to determine their sources in cases of
interference, frequency studies for license applications, and other
legitimate needs of access to a public resource.
All other users of the radio spectrum are made aware that, by
its very nature of penetration of private dwellings, radio signals
may be monitored by anyone who wishes to tune them in. Only the mobile
telephone industry expects a law to be granted in their interest to
forbid Americans from fully utilizing pre-existing radio and
television equipment manufactured under present law and purchased by
them in good faith.
Inexpensive devices exist which can be added to any
communications equipment to encrypt their transmissions, making casual
interception impossible. The mobile telephone industry is well aware
of this, but would sooner have the burden of non-interception placed
on the American public rather than pay the minor up-front cost of
adequately designing their own equipment.
Adequate law presently exists prohibiting the intrusion of
uninvited listeners into private communications and the subsequent use
of the information so obtained (the Communications Act of 1934, section
705 as recently amended); superseding this workable regulation with a
bad law that is totally unenforceable and illogical in its basic
tenets makes a mockery of the judicial system.
In conclusion, I am in favor of protecting the right of privacy
of the individual when such a right has a reasonable expectation. I am
opposed to any legislation motivated entirely by corporate profit and
which, by its self-serving interest, is unreasonable and unenforceable.
Please consider the testimony of so many well-informed
individuals to bring correct perspective to the hearings on this
subject in spite of the highly financed special interests' attempts to
obscure the facts.
Sincerely,
===========================
(End of sample letter. List of Senators, addresses and Washington
phone numbers follows. Much thanks to Chris Tucker of North Kingstown,
Rhode Island, for having the patience to type this into his Commodore.)
Hart=Hart Senate Office Building
Dirksen=Dirksen Senate Office Building
Russell=Russell Senate Office Building
Address your letter to:
The Honorable (Senator's Name)
(Number and office building name)
Washington, D.C. 20510
Name Office Bldg Phone
---- ------ ------ --------
James Abdnor(R-SD) SH-309 Hart 224-2321
Mark Andrews(R-ND) SH-724 Hart 224-2043
William L. Armstrong(R-CO) SH-258 Hart 224-5941
Max Baucus(D-MT) SH-706 Hart 224-2651
Loyd D. Bentsen(D-TX) SH-703 Hart 224-5922
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.(D-DE) SR-453 Russell 224-5042
Jeff Bingaman(D-NM) SH-502 Hart 224-5521
David L. Boren(D-OK) SR-453 Russell 224-4721
Rudy Boschwitz(R-NM) SH-506 Hart 224-5641
Bill Bradley(D-NJ) SH-731 Hart 224-3224
Dale Bumpers(D-AR) SD-229 Dirksen 224-4843
Qentin N. Burdick(D-ND) SH-511 Hart 224-2551
Robert C. Byrd(D-WV) SH-311 Hart 224-3951
John H. Chafee(R-RI) SD-567 Dirksen 224-2921
Lawton Chiles(D-FL) SR-250 Russell 224-5274
Thad Cochran(R-MS) SR-326 Russell 224-5054
William S. Cohen(R-ME) SH-322 Hart 224-2523
Alan Cranston(D-CA) SH-112 Hart 224-3553
Alfonse D'Amato(R-NY) SH-520 Hart 224-6542
John C. Danforth(R-MO) SR-497 Russell 224-6154
Dennis DeConcini(D-AZ) SH-328 Hart 224-4521
Jeremiah A. Denton(R-AL) SH-516 Hart 224-5744
Alan J. Dixon(D-IL) SH-316 Hart 224-2854
Christopher J. Dodd(D-CT) SH-324 Hart 224-2823
Robert Dole(R-KS) SH-141 Hart 224-6521
Pete V. Domenici(R-NM) SD-434 Dirksen 224-6621
David Durenberger(R-MN) SR-154 Russell 224-3244
Thomas F. Eagleton(D-MO) SD-197 Dirksen 224-5721
Daniel J. Evens(R-WA) SH-702 Hart 224-3441
J. James Exon(D-NB) SH-330 Hart 224-4224
Wendall H. Ford(D-KY) SR-173A Russell 224-4343
Jake Garn(R-UT) SD-505 Dirksen 224-5444
Barry Goldwater(R-AZ) SR-363 Russell 224-2235
Albert Gore, Jr.(D-TN) SR-393 Russell 224-4944
Slade Gorton(R-WA) SH-513 Hart 224-2621
Phil Gramm(R-TX) SR-370 Russell 224-2934
Charles E. Grassley(R-IA) SH-135 Hart 224-3744
Tom Harkin(D-IA) SH-317 Hart 224-3254
Gary Hart(D-CO) SR-237 Russell 224-5852
Orrin G. Hatch(R-UT) SR-135 Russell 224-5251
Mark O. Hatfield(R-OR) SH-711 Hart 224-3753
Paula Hawkins(R-FL) SH-313 Hart 224-3041
Chic Hecht(R-NV) SH-302 Hart 224-6244
Howell T. Heflin(D-AL) SH-728 Hart 224-4124
John Heinz(R-PA) SR-277 Russell 224-6324
Jesse Helms(R-NC) SD-403 Dirksen 224-6342
Ernest F. Hollings(D-SC) SR-125 Russell 224-6121
Daniel K. Inouye(D-HI) SH-722 Hart 224-3934
J. Bennett Johnston(D-LA) SH-136 Hart 224-5824
Nancy Landon Kassebaum(R-KS)SR-302 Russell 224-4774
Robert W. Kasten, Jr.(R-WI) SH-110 Hart 224-5323
Edward M. Kennedy(D-MA) SR-113 Russell 224-4543
John F. Kerry(D-MA) SR-362 Russell 224-2742
Frank R. Lautenberg(D-NJ) SH-717 Hart 224-4744
Paul Laxalt(R-NV) SR-323A Russell 224-3542
Patrick J. Leahy(D-VT) SR-433 Russell 224-4242
Carl Levin(D-MI) SR-459 Russell 224-6221
Russel B. Long(D-LA) SR-225 Russell 224-4623
Richard G. Lugar(R-IN) SH-306 Hart 224-4814
James A. McClure(R-ID) SD-361 Dirksen 224-2752
Mitch McConnell(R-KY) SR-120 Russell 224-2541
Charles Mathias, Jr.(R-MD) SR-387 Russell 224-4654
Spark M. Matsunaga(D-HI) SH-109 Hart 224-6361
Mack Mattingly(R-GA) SH-320 Hart 224-3643
John Melcher(D-MT) SH-730 Hart 224-2644
Howard M. Metzenbaum(D-OH) SR-140 Russell 224-3215
George J. Mitchell(D-ME) SR-176 Russell 224-5344
Daniel P. Moynihan(D-NY) SR-464 Russell 224-4451
Frank H. Murkowski(R-AK) SH-709 Hart 224-6665
Don Nickles(R-OK) SH-713 Hart 224-5754
Sam Nunn(D-GA) SD-303 Dirksen 224-3521
Bob Packwood(R-OR) SR-259 Russell 224-5244
Claiborne Pell(D-RI) SR-335 Russell 224-4642
Larry Pressler(R-SD) SR-407A Russell 224-5842
William Proxmire(D-WI) SD-530 Dirksen 224-5653
David Pryor(D-AR) SR-264 Russell 224-2353
Dan Quayle(R-IN) SH-524 Hart 224-5623
Donal W. Riegle, Jr.(D-MI) SD-105 Dirksen 224-4822
John D. Rockefeller(D-WV) SD-241 Dirksen 224-6472
William V. Roth, Jr.(R-DE) SH-104 Hart 224-2441
Warren B. Rudman(R-NH) SH-530 Hart 224-3324
Paul S. Sarbanes(D-MD) SD-232 Dirksen 224-4524
Jim Sasser(D-TN) SR-298 Russell 224-3344
Paul Simon(D-IL) SD-462 Dirksen 224-2152
Alan K. Simpson(R-WY) SD-261 Dirksen 224-3424
Arlen Specter(R-PA) SH-331 Hart 224-4254
Robert T. Stafford(R-VT) SH-133 Hart 224-5141
John C. Stennis(D-MS) SR-205 Russell 224-6253
Ted Stevens(R-AK) SH-522 Hart 224-3004
Steven D. Symms(R-IN) SH-509 Hart 224-6142
Strom Thurmond(R-SC) SR-218 Russell 224-5972
Paul Trible(R-VA) SH-517 Hart 224-4024
Malcolm Wallop(R-WY) SR-206 Russell 224-6441
John W. Warner(R-VA) SR-421 Russell 224-2023
Lowell P. Weicker,Jr.(R-CT) SH-303 Hart 224-4041
Pete Wilson(R-CA) SH-720 Hart 224-3841
Edward Zorinsky(D-NB) SR-443 Russell 224-6551
====================================================
The following is from an editorial by Bob Grove in the above-mentioned
issue of Monitoring Times. He raises an interesting point concerning
Government priorities when it comes to the 'electronic privacy' of
American citizens:
In spite of vigorous protests by National Security Agency, Central
Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 350-foot
high Mount Alto in Washington, D.C., was turned over to the Soviets
for their construction of an elaborate radio interception installation
aimed at the White House and other prime sensitive targets in the
nations's capitol.
Another question of mental competence arose when high ground was given
to the Soviets for a similar facility erected as a 19 story building
in Riverdale (The Bronx), New York.
=======================================================================
Mind you, being diplomats, the Soviets in D.C. and The Bronx are protected
from persecution under diplomatic immunity.
Two common integrated circuits were demonstrated before a House committee
that would easily provide a very secure level of encryption. One IC cost
$2.00, and the other cost $20.00. "Far too costly"? Who is the cellular
phone industry trying to fool? This Act would prohibit the "interception
of signals not usually accessible by the general public." To wit, the
800 MHz portion of the electromagnetic spectrum used by cellular phones
(also used by channels 80 through 83 on the UHF dial). What really gets
me is that the ACLU is pushing the bill because they don't want police to
be able to intercept private phone calls or some such nonsense. Unless
the police are really after someone, they are not going to go chasing a
low-level signal around a city to prosecute someone; phone tapping is
much easier. And unless cellular phone calls are encrypted, they will
not be secure, period. I would never think of purchasing a cellular
phone knowing this; if I am going to buy a $2,000 phone, I want a $20
chip in it that will really guarantee me a secure circuit. (I don't
remember what the chips were--anyone know?)
The Justice Department has already stated that it will not enforce
this Act should it become law--how would they be able to? Someone
would have to do something really blatant to be prosecuted. The way
to secure information that the public has ready access to (and let's
face it, anybody can tune a TV in to channels 80 through 83) is to
encrypt it, not to tell people they can't monitor certain channels and
expect them not to.
I have a ten year-old HRO receiver that tunes from DC to 30 MHz; since
HRO is a well-known name in amateur radio, I doubt that I am the only
person with one. I have built several block converters that work quite
well with this radio, extending its tuning range in to the UHF band.
This is not to mention equipment from Regency. If, in turning dials,
I come across a conversation on a "secure" frequency, I would be breaking
the law. If any transmission is too sensitive for the general public,
then it should be secured by encryption; it's cheap enough now, and
building receiving equipment is just too easy.
--Paul Mazzarelli
pm@harvard.HARVARD.EDU
Disclaimer: I have no connection with Monitoring Times.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act--It's not just a bad idea,
it's about to become the Law.
When radios are outlawed, only outlaws will have radios.
"Gentlemen, we must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall
all hang separately!" --Benjamin Franklin
Paul Mazzarelli pm@harvard
121 Science Center
Harvard University Home:
1 Oxford Street 6 Crescent Street
Cambridge, MA 02138 Somerville, MA 02145
495-1273 623-0963