Geoff@SRI-CSL.ARPA (the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow) (02/05/86)
INDUSTRIAL COMMUNICATIONS, January 31, 1986--Page 11,12&13.
TANDY JOINS AMATEURS IN EXPRESSING DOUBT OVER
"INTERCEPTION' TABOOS IN PRIVACY BILL
Capitol Hill this week resumed its work on a push to update the
Federal Wiretap Law (1968), which seeks to extend privacy protection
well beyond plain old-fashioned telephone talk. And as the third
round of hearings came to a close Thursday, it became apparent that in
trying to do too much at once, legislators may be unable to do
anything at all.
Providers of cellular telephone service previously said in a hearing
that their subscribers have the same right to protection of the
privacy of their conversations as do users of landline telephones (IC,
Oct. 4, 1985). And, not one person testifying before congressional
committees has disagreed that cellular conversations deserve to be
protected from eavesdroppers.
It is only when the conversation turns to the broader implications of
the current House bill (HR 3378) that the users of non-cellular radio
spectrum begin to muster a front of strong opposition. When Congress
looks to extend privacy protection to virtually all "electronic
communications," amateur radio operators lead the defense against what
they consider an assault on the public's right to free access of the
airwaves.
In moving to update the nation's privacy laws to include new and
future communications technologies, Congress overlooked some extremely
crucial technical considerations, according to at least one
manufacturer and several amateur radio groups.
The House Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the
Administration of Justice this week heard from telephone companies and
amateur radio groups on the merits and faults of its version of the
pending Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1985 (HR 3378). It
was introduced by subcommittee Chairman Robert Kastenmeier (D-Wis.)
If enacted, the bill would substantially redefine and extend the
protections of the 1968 Federal Wiretap Law to all "electronic
communications," which are defined as "any transmission of signs,
signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature
in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic or photoelectric
system."
Further, the bill states that "interception" of this type of
electronic communications would be illegal--except for a few specific
exceptions.
Tandy Looks for More Explicit Language for Privacy Exception
------------------------------------------------------------
Tandy Corp., in its schizophrenic capacity as maker/marketer of
scanners, cordless phones and (just recently) cellular phones, told
the subcommittee that it would have to withhold its support because
the Congress has failed to make these exceptions broad or explicit
enough.
While acknowledging that privacy needs to be protected for certain
types of communication, the manufacturer said, "The bill may be overly
inclusive and extend protection to categories of communications in
which there has never been any perception or expectation of privacy."
The company's position, made by George A. Kuhnreich, vice president
for corporate planning and governmental affairs, is that the
protection provided by the bill should be narrowed to "the willful
interception" of "cellular communications as well as to all forms of
encrypted communications."
Tandy further recommends that the bill be amended to make clear that
it will remain legal to use scanners to intercept communications
"readily accessible to the public"--such as walkie-talkie, Citizens'
Band , and police or public safety channels. But the bill's
"over-inclusiveness," Kuhnreich said, protects such communications as
ship-to-shore, which traditionally have been monitored by "scores of
mariners" for safety reasons. "As a blue-water sailor myself--I want
everybody possible to hear my mayday," he said.
Tandy estimates that there are more than 350,000 amateur radio
operators in the United States, 40-60 million CBs and walkie-talkies,
and more than 50 million short wave multiband receivers--perhaps over
120 million receivers that potentially could be affected by HR 3378.
In order for these users to gain maximum benefit from their equipment,
the more narrow protections are recommended.
According to the bill's language, communications not covered under the
law would include those:
*Made through an electronic communications system "designed so that
such electronic communications is readily accessible to the public."
*Transmitted by any station "for the use of the general public, which
relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress."
*Transmitted by a "walkie-talkie, or a police or fire communications
system readily accessible to the public"'
*"By any amateur radio station operator or by a Citizens Band radio operator."
Amateur groups, while the beneficiary of some exemptions, told
Kastenmeier"s subcommittee that these exemptions don't go far enough.
Amateur Radio Reps See Freedom of the Airwaves as the Fundamental Issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two amateur radio groups gave the user side of the picture,
presenting legislators with a virtual laundry list of exemptions they
would need before amateurs could support the bill.
Problems could result from the sweeping legislation, without adequate
attention to the "interception" issue, according to the American Radio
Relay League. ARRL President Dr. Larry E. Price stressed that his
folks neither expect nor want privacy in their communications.
Moreover, amateurs are "expected to, and do, provide regular public
service and emergency communications," particularly during disasters
when regular communications are disrupted. They have developed "packet
networks" of computer data banks and provide "phone patches" to
connect overseas servicemen with their families.
The ARRL requested that the language of the final bill clearly exempt
these and any other uses of the amateur bands and also the use of
scanner receivers by amateurs to monitor frequencies outside the
amateur bands (military, civil air patrol, Coast Guard, police, and
weather service frequencies).
The Association of North America Radio Clubs (ANARC), represented by
Executive Secretary Richard T. Colgan, had both the most detailed and
most strongly worded objections to the proposed bill. (The
organization represents 18 radio-short-wave and scanner-listening
organizations with more than 10,000 U.S. members.)
The bill"s "vague and overly broad language," he said, "could make it
possible to prohibit the public from using most of the spectrum." The
bill"s current wording, for example, would make it illegal for a radio
user to tune in to find the source of interference with his
television. The bill also does not exempt the General Mobile Radio
Service. Should GMRS users not be allowed to tune in to find an
available frequency?
Colgan called for a more specific definition of some of the bill"s
terminology: There should be a clear differentiation between the radio
signal itself and the information it carries. All radio signals are
"readily accessible to the public"' but the information they carry is
what should be protected. Therefore, the bill should make clear that
it is prohibiting "interception" of the signal, as acquisition of the
information content, and not "listening" or "monitoring," which is
merely receipt of the signal.
Push Between "Privacy" and "Security" Highlights Scanner/User Rights Debate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ANARC stand is that the airwaves should be free--those who expect
privacy should be provided it by encryption, either user or carrier
provided. Colgan mentioned and demonstrated a number of inexpensive
encryption devices for cellular telephones: A microchip for less than
$10 to provide voice inversion and a $40 digital voice-protection
system.
What this solution fails to take into account is that such encryption
technology must also be incorporated at the cellular switch, and, in
fact, must be on an end-to-end basis, according to Telocator Network
of America's Barbara Phillips, director of government relations.
Further, it puts more responsibility (and cost) on the shoulders of
the cellular user than is reasonable, she added.
These problems of a "free airwave" voiced by Tandy and the amateurs
brings up THE controversial aspect of the bill addressed by both
common carrier and private radio interests. And they point out the
basic philosophical controversy of the bill: Is it the responsibility
of the hobbyist to respect the privacy of radio users, or is it the
responsibility of the (cellular) radio user to take steps to guard
against the illegal and malicious interception of conversations.
In making these distinctions and trying to draw a legal line, Congress
may pit concerns over radio privacy directly against concerns over
longstanding proper radio practice.
The National Association of Business and Educational Radio Inc.
(NABER) (business radio) have both brought to the subcommittee"s
attention their concerns that "incidental" or "nonmalicious"
interception language should be added. NABER contends that under the
rules of the present bill, technicians servicing radios, or even
licensees looking for a vacant channel, could be found culpable.
At Telocator Network of America, cellular interests are persuaded that
there is ample protection for cellular users in other parts of the
bill's language, and agree that not all "reception" should be
considered "interception". According to the association"s president,
Thomas Lamoureux, "This kind of strict application is clearly not the
intent of our interest in privacy."
Encryption of communications that users wish to keep private might
provide the ultimate answer to the problem of illegal interception.
One of the points brought up by both the bill's sponsors and those
giving testimony was the difficulty of enforcement by an already
overtaxed criminal justice system. Given the 120 million-plus
receivers in operation, the law might prove to be ultimately
unenforceable and could make a whole group of otherwise law-abiding
citizens wonder if they are criminals.
The subcommittee will hold further hearings Feb. 26.
-------