rnj@BRL.ARPA (Bobby Jesse) (07/22/86)
To spark further interest and letter writing, I submit excerpts of
a letter I sent to several parties in February 1986:
Dear Senator Mathias:
[....]
Let me state clearly that I believe the Act in its present form
is *bad* legislation. There is a need to strengthen the 1968 wire-
tapping laws in some respects, but S-2575 extends "protection"
beyond that which is technically reasonable or even believable.
In particular, I agree that wiretapping protection should be
independent of the *content* and representation of a message. That
is, video, facsimile, digital, etc. signals deserve just the same
protection as voice signal.
The problem is that S-2575 treats the medium of transmission
(radio, wire, photoelectric) just as generally as the content, and
this is in fundamental conflict with the differing physical behavior
of the different media.
Some means of transmission are inherently point-to-point -- wire,
narrowbeam microwave, and the like. Information thus sent is targeted
to a particular recipient, much as first class mail is enveloped and
addressed to a particular person. And those communications deserve much
the same legal protection as first class mail.
Most electromagnetic emissions (radio), in contrast, are inherently
omnidirectional -- that is, just as physically available to many people
as to the intended recipient. It is no more reasonable to make illegal
the reception of [some] such broadcasts than it would be to forbid the
reading of certain pages of the Washington Post.
But if this argument is ignored, with the claim that it is *vital*
that the public not be permitted to receive some radio broadcasts (or
to read certain pages of the Post), would the resulting legislation be
useful? The answer is no -- a prudent, informed businessman would no
sooner discuss confidential matters on an unencrypted cellular radio-
telephone call than he would publish the same material in the Post.
In both cases, he knows [or should know] that the media of trans-
mission are inherently available to the public, and that with or without
S-2575, it would not be prudent to shout his affairs to the public.
[...] the sort of protection S-2575 attempts to provide is worse
than useless. It lulls those who don't understand the technology
into a false sense of security, believing that their communications are
not being overheard, simply because it is illegal to overhear them.
No doubt this is exactly why the cellular telephone industry supports
the Bill -- a pacified public will buy more cellphones and use them
more freely.
[....]
Respectfully yours,
/s/ R. Jesse
=======
The Mobile Communications Division of the Electronic Industries Assoc.
[EIA] distributed around Capitol Hill an excellent letter dated July
10, 1986 to the same general effect as the above, with some additional
points:
+ "In the case of cordless telephones the FCC requires product labeling
to inform the consumer that 'privacy of communications may not be ensured
when using this phone.' We believe that consumer education is a more
appropriate response to this issue than is the proposed legislation."
+ the General Counsel of the FCC told the US DoJ in April 86 "'...we
propose that the Safe Streets Act not prohibit interception of the
radio portion of telephone communications where the interception is
neither divulged nor used for the benefit of the interceptor or
another not entitled thereto.'"
+ "There is also Congressional precedent acknowledging the concept of
encryption. When Congress adopted Section 705 of the Communications
Act in 1984, it exempted from penalty the interception of satellite
cable programming by individuals for private viewing if 'the programming
involved is not encrypted.'"
=======
Readers of Telecom might think that there would be widespread opposition
to this bill. Not so! The ease (unanimous voice vote?) and silence
with which it passed the House is evidence. The EIA appears to be the
first major voice to rise against it generally. [I understand that the
Amateur Radio Relay League was objecting in the early stages, but was
placated by additional language excluding ham bands, and has been more or
less quiet since.]
In contrast, the support for the Bill is vocal and very well organized.
And the weight of the booboisie is behind it with the simplistic notion
that "decent people don't listen in on other people's phone calls. let's
make it illegal."
And we can guess that if the bill becomes law, we'll hear no objection
from the Supreme Court.ptb@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA (07/28/86)
This seems like a "off the wall" solution to a potentially serious problem. I can sympathize with the feeling of "I dont want people listening to my cellular telephone". The problem is that I dont see THIS really solving the problem. In the first place, how is someone who is new to scanning (as I am) going to be able to distinguish between unencrypted police and fire communications, which are unprotected, and an unencrypted DoD or other communication, that is protected, before the carrier comes on if a radio is in search mode. Is the Congress going to make illegal (at a felony level) something that can be "committed" by someone without their knowledge. What about if I am in the bathroom or otherwise unable to hear the scanner. Is this still a crime? How are law enforcement agencies going to enforce this law? Are they going to get search warrants for everyone who has an outdoor antenna? (And this will not work at all for people who have a scanner in a room, with an indoor antenna....) Are they going to subpoena all of Bearcat's, Radio Shack's, etc. sales slips looking for people who have scanners and then place bugs in the devices to make sure that they are not picking up anything illegal? This wont work for those of us who bought the little buggers from someone second-hand.... C'mon guys.... Even if they can prove that someone HAS A DEVICE TO DO THIS, it does not seem possible to prove that the person involved has actually broken the law, because there is no way of telling if the scanner actually stopped on a particular channel. (Even if that channel is programmed into its memory, it is possible that any signals were out of range or not transmitting at the time the scanner was kerchunking through that frequency). Nor will making possession of a device capable of receiving certain transmissions work because: a) It is a very large category, involving almost all scanners, general coverage receivers, etc. b) The scanners can be used for legal purposes (I use mine for monitoring the Amateur Radio 2 meter and 440 mhz bands.) It seems the last time we had a law that tried to do something like this was at the time of Prohibition. It seems like that got repealed too, but only after the law practically spawned a lot of the Organized Crime around today. Does history have to repeat itself here? The current law is probably adequate for dealing with people who divulge the content of common carrier messages to someone else or use it for their own personal gain. What is really needed here is some kind of encryption key, maybe based on the (unique) telephone number of the cordless phone, if that is really what people want to protect. FCC certainly has the power (they regualte all transmitters of common carriers) to promulgate a standard to take care of this problem. A bit can be set in a digitized data stream to indicate if the caller is running the encryption or not. I agree that there is a privacy problem to be dealt with, but making it illegal to receive items is not going to really prevent problems because it is just not enforceable. The solution is to develop a unified encryption standard, and then let the users choose between whether or not privacy is important to them. I just do not have sympathy for people who on one hand want complete secrecy of what they are saying and on the other hand want to put it on a broadcast medium at the cheapest possible price and have legislation "solve" the problem for them. My feeling is that at least some of the responsibility lies with the sender to send a private message over a secured medium. Peter Baldwin (ptb@mitre-bedford)
FTD%MIT-OZ@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("David D. Story") (08/02/86)
This is nothing compared to living in the City with nosy building people near your junction box, especially N.Y., where you might think the way they are treated that they are the Senate Buruea of Investigation. They come complete with priviledged radio communications to Police and others. These Guys Are the Ones to Control. Not only do they have networks for spotting but work in close enough proximity to go through your garbage, bug your apartment, tap your phone, use information gathered. I know ! I have been a victim of some of their partial information gathering and I it has costed me contractual business !!!!!