koning@koning.dec.com (NI1D @ FN42eq) (10/14/87)
I get the feeling that Mr. Meaders gets his views on what constitutes liberty from the practices of its enemies. Or has he forgotten what was well known to people here 200 years ago, that big governments (and particularly snoopy governments) are the enemy, not the friend, of freedom? Sigh. What a statement to make in the year of the Constitution's bicentennial. paul
johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders) (10/15/87)
Organization: Austin UNIX Users' Group, Austin, TX
Lines: 32
I feel that I should better explain my position. First I thank everyone
for not flaming me as is the practice on other groups.
I cherish my right to say what I please like everyone else. And yes I
think it would be great if I never had to worry about having my conversations
monitored. But in this day and age the chance of being monitored is great.
Computers do a lot of the monitoring searching for keywords and when they
find one they log the conversation or whatever was being monitored (I am no
expert but I have read "Puzzle Palace" and I gather that is how it goes).
In the past year and a half my phone has been tapped numerous times (either
that or my phone lines like generating beeps at odd times). There are
several reasons for a tap on myself: a) what I do in the Army Reserve,
b) my computer use of the phone, c) some of my friends have jobs that could
cause them to come under surveillance. I guess being in the military and
knowing that you are prone to routine surveillance has caused me take
it for granted and no longer bothers me. Why should it really if I am doing
nothing wrong. Sure I give up some freedom, but that is a price I pay
for doing what I do (which I enjoy). People not involved in the Intelligence
community aren't used to being surveilled, so to you I apologize if I sound
like Ed Meese. It is comforting for me, though, to realize I may be
under friendly surveillance because that may catch enemy surveillance of
myself or CYA if the Threat tries to blackmail me, etc.
In summary, I don't think everyone should have to submit to invasion
of privacy. But being a member of the Intelligence communtiy and a student
has caused me not to mind any surveillance (imagined or actual) of myself.
I am not an Ed Meese clone, just a product of my training.
--
John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752
ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550
UUCP: ...!ut-sally!ut-ngp!auscso!jclyde!john
\johnmhansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) (10/16/87)
In article <497@auscso.UUCP>, johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders) writes:
. In the past year and a half my phone has been tapped numerous times (either
. that or my phone lines like generating beeps at odd times).
Perhaps you have the "call waiting" feature on your phone.....
--
Craig Hansen
Manager, Architecture Development
MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
...decwrl!mips!hansenjohnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders) (10/18/87)
In article <807@mips.UUCP> hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) writes: >In article <497@auscso.UUCP>, johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders) writes: >. In the past year and a half my phone has been tapped numerous times (either >. that or my phone lines like generating beeps at odd times). > >Perhaps you have the "call waiting" feature on your phone..... I do have "call waiting," however, the beeps I talk about are not call waiting beeps. In fact, they are more like clicks. Occasionly my phone will ring for a split second, I will go and pick it up, and someone will be there (no it isn't a caller since the phone only beeped a second and stopped). Once it was a phone company guy checking the network out (so he said), other times nobody would answer me. Also, during long distance calls I will hear beeps (although this could be switching equipment, I don't use AT&T on my voice line for long distance). Anybody else experience this kind of thing? -- John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752 ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550 UUCP: ...!ut-ngp!auscso!jclyde!john \johnm
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (10/19/87)
In article <497@auscso.UUCP>, johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders) writes: >In the past year and a half my phone has been tapped numerous times (either >that or my phone lines like generating beeps at odd times). >several reasons for a tap on myself: a) what I do in the Army Reserve, > It is comforting for me, though, to realize I may be > under friendly surveillance because that may catch enemy surveillance of > myself or CYA if the Threat tries to blackmail me, etc. Phone switching equipment (especially non-AT&T :-) ) sometimes introduces noises and crosstalk into phone connections. Have you tried complaining to your local phone company? I'd think that anyone who wants to surreptitiously bug a phone line would do it noiselessly; why arouse the suspicions of the buggee? For that matter, speaking from the point of view of devil's advocate, let me ask: what makes you so sure that the bugging (if there is bugging at all on your phone) is friendly (even if you assume that all U.S. governmental phone bugging is in the "friendly" category; not everybody would agree!). Maybe you should report the beeps to your Reserve commander; you might catch some Russky spies red handed! ( :-) ** googolplex ) -- |------------Dan Levy------------| Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa, | an Engihacker @ | vax135}!ttrdc!ttrda!levy | AT&T Computer Systems Division | Disclaimer? Huh? What disclaimer??? |--------Skokie, Illinois--------|
adamj@thoth8.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (10/19/87)
In article <533@auscso.UUCP> johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders, Jr.) writes: >I do have "call waiting," however, the beeps I talk about are not call waiting >beeps. In fact, they are more like clicks. Occasionly my phone will ring >for a split second, I will go and pick it up, and someone will be there (no >it isn't a caller since the phone only beeped a second and stopped). Once >it was a phone company guy checking the network out (so he said), other times >nobody would answer me. Also, during long distance calls I will hear beeps >(although this could be switching equipment, I don't use AT&T on my voice line >for long distance). Anybody else experience this kind of thing? >-- >John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752 >ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550 >UUCP: ...!ut-ngp!auscso!jclyde!john > \johnm My cheap push-button phone would let out a half assed ring now and then, last summer, when I was in New Jersey. Have you tried a different phone? Being bugged: I understand that there are numbers that you can call that will give you a rising tone that either stays high or drops low and starts rising again depending upon whether there are any extra listeners. I've tried the numbers with different, but consistent, results from different a variety of places. I used to have a list of four such numbers and I used to know which response meant the line was "bugged" and which one meant not. Obviously, these sorts of detectors can't detect everything. E.g., to the best of my knowledge there's now way to tell whether a satallite signal is being received by an extra antenna either near the satallite Or near the receiving ground station. Adam J. Richter adamj@widow.berkeley.edu ....!ucbvax!widow!adamj (415)642-7762
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (10/19/87)
In article <5515@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, adamj@thoth8.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU writes: > Being bugged: I understand that there are numbers that > you can call that will give you a rising tone that either stays high or > drops low and starts rising again depending upon whether there are > any extra listeners. I've tried the numbers with different, but consistent, > results from different a variety of places. > I used to have a list of four such numbers and I used to know > which response meant the line was "bugged" and which one meant not. While this may not be the most appropriate newsgroup for this discussion, I feel obligated to respond to what appears to be the propagation of an "urban legend". There is no way in which any telephone company central office apparatus can know if your line is "bugged". Most "real bugs" (which are few and far between) today are inductively coupled to a telephone pair, draw no current, present no bridged capacitance or inductance, inject no signal into the telephone line, and are virtually undetectable even with a balanced-pair time domain reflectometer (an instrument which requires that the telephone line in question be disconnected both from central office apparatus and any telephone instruments before a measurement can be made). Less "sophisticated bugs", which make direct two-wire connection to a telephone pair are either capacitively-coupled and/or connected with a series resistance >> 100K ohms. The effective bridged capacitance or bridged resistance (i.e., current "leak") of even these "bugs" is only a miniscule fraction of the normal capacitance of the telephone line and its normal leakage resistance, and for all intents and purposes presents an immeasureable condition from the telephone central office; it definitely presents an immeasureable condition if a telephone is off-hook at the time and is used to dial a test number! And let's say this alleged "bug test" number just measured the current draw of the connected subscriber instrument, and reported the results by means of a tone. How should this test device know the "normal" current draw of your telephone instrument? Current draw will vary all over the map (typically 25 to 100 mA), depending upon distance from the central office and the type of subscriber instrument you are using (i.e., a 500-type "traditional" telephone set with a passive network will behave MUCH differently than say, one of the newer electronic telephone sets). In addition, some telephones which have memory dialers and clocks draw a few mA from the telephone in an ON-HOOK condition, with this current being used to trickle-charge the dialer memory battery and power the clock. How is any telephone central office apparatus to know if say, a 2 mA leak is the result of an electronic telephone or the result of a "bug"? An operating telephone company simply has NO REASON to install any "bug test" line. Actual inspections of telephone lines conducted by an operating telephone company (which are also few and far beween), start out by "cording" the subscriber pair in the telephone central office - which is a procedure that isolates the pair from central office switching apparatus and connects the pair to a "test board" where appropriate resistance, capacitance, balance, current leak, and foreign potential measurements can be conducted. Ah, but you say you dialed numbers which responded! Well, what did you dial? Probably one or more of the following: 1. A milliwatt or CLA (Combined Loop-Around) test line which provides a 1,000 (or 1,004) Hz tone at 0 dBm. This is either a steady tone, or one which is 9 seconds on, and 1 second off. This test line is used for transmission measurement. 2. A "loop checker" test line, which consists of a tone of slowly rising frequency which then abruptly falls in frequency and restarts the cycle; the cycle period is typically 20 seconds. This test line is for "simplified" transmission measurements of subscriber telephone loops. 3. A "105-type" ATMS Responder test line, which sounds something like a modem line answer. This line is used for automated testing of interoffice trunks (i.e., the test line gets dialed by other automatic equipment). 4. A "touch-tone station test line", which is used to verify that a touch-tone telephone set is sending the correct frequency tone pairs for each digit. In operation, the line returns dial tone; you then dial 1234567890, which is followed by "two beeps" if the digits are okay, or by "one beep" if the digits are not okay. 5. A "ringback station test line" (sometimes combined with (4) above), which often returns either "high tone" (600 Hz), or dial tone followed by the entry of a ringing party code number. This test line is used to test ringers. 6. A "continuity test line", which generally returns a tone interrupted once per second, and is used for testing within the central office. 7. A "delayed charging test line", which returns a variety of clicks (as answer supervision is returned and released), usually followed by a tone interrupted once per second. 8. A "coin station test line", which is probably the most complex dial test line to be found, and which returns the greatest variety of tones (interruped dial tone, high tone beeps, ringback tones, etc.). This is a specialized test line used to test the coin collection and return functions of coin telephones. It's operating procedure is complex, and applies only to coin telephones; dialing this line from a regular telephone can produce a variety of results. I suspect that you have probably dialed a coin station test line. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/ <> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"
jmm@thoth16.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (10/20/87)
Sounds to me like it might just be garbage on the line. I hope so - after all we dump enough money into our intelligence agencies that I would assume they can come up with a bugging device that isn't quite so obvious |-). James Moore ...!ucbvax!leggatt!jmm "Ocus ba hairi no fertha leu acht cluchi ocus cheti ocus anius ocus aibinnius ocus longad ocus tomailt, conid de sin atat na trenae samna sechnon na hErend." -as an sceal _Seirgligi Con Culaind inso sis ocus oenet Emire_ James Moore ..!ucbvax!leggatt!jmm "Ocus ba hairi no fertha leu acht cluchi ocus cheti ocus anius ocus aibinnius ocus longad ocus tomailt, conid de sin atat na trenae samna sechnon na hErend." -as an sceal _Seirgligi Con Culaind inso sis ocus oenet Emire_
samlb@well.UUCP (Samuel B. Bassett) (10/20/87)
***SIGH***
Are all current (and ex-) spooks Professional Paranoids? Must be an
occupational disease.
I decided a number of years ago that there probably _wasn't_ a
conspiracy (name your favorite...), since, if there _were_, the world would
operate much more efficiently and rationally than it in fact does.
Strange noises on the phone are as likely to be sheer incompetence or
outdated equipment at the phone company than deliberate listening . . .
--
Sam'l Bassett -- Semantic Engineering for fun & profit.
34 Oakland Ave., San Anselmo CA 94960; DDD: (415) 454-7282
UUCP: {hplabs,ptsfa,lll-crg}!well!samlb; Internet: samlb@well.uucp
Compuserve: 71735,1776; WU Easylink ESL 6284-3034; MCI SBassettglr@m-net.UUCP (Glen L. Roberts) (10/22/87)
>. In the past year and a half my phone has been tapped numerous times (either >. that or my phone lines like generating beeps at odd times). Tapping a phone DOES NOT involve putting clicks or beeps on the line. One would have to put forth more effort to cause a beep or a click from a tap than not. The ONLY reason one that had your line tapped would beep or click it would be to let you know it was tapped... ie: make you paranoid. -- Glen L. Roberts, Box 8275-UN, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107 {!ihnp4!itivax!m-net!glr} ``No government door can be closed against the 1st Amendment and no government action is immune from its force.'' -Bursey v. US (466 F.2d 1059)