len@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Leonard P Levine) (02/28/90)
ATT is currently marketing a portable office phone that connects with their Merlin system. Does anyone know if there are ANY security features available with that phone? It seems to me that listening for messages on home phones is just a dumb game, but listening in for messages on a busy office phone might well be considered a worthwhile job to some. + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + | Leonard P. Levine e-mail len@evax.cs.uwm.edu | | Professor, Computer Science Office (414) 229-5170 | | University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Home (414) 962-4719 | | Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A. FAX (414) 229-6958 | + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (03/01/90)
Leonard P Levine <len@csd4.csd.uwm.edu> writes: > ATT is currently marketing a portable office phone that connects with > their Merlin system. Does anyone know if there are ANY security > features available with that phone? I'm so glad someone else opened this worm can. The only difference between the Merlin phone and their ordinary cordless is the signaling required to access the Merlin features and the displays to show status. There is no "scrambling". Thoughts occur. The TV ads talk about the "cords that bind and hold your business back." That's silly. How many office situations are you aware of that require a person talking on the phone to dance around the office during the conversation? Even those businesses with PBXs that can effectively use an ordinary cordless phone don't. I'm going to give that phone a couple of months to catch on. Remember, it won't be the riffraff who get one of those, but the boss -- the big executive. The conversations on those cordless phones should be the juciest ones being made on the company's phone system. Now that the courts have so ruled, I can cruise the industrial parks of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale with the old ICOM and see what great gossip I can pick up with impunity. Who knows, maybe the next big Silicon Valley bombshell will be revealed first on this group thanks to the popularity of the Merlin cordless :-) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Even though cordless phones are not treated as cellular phones where the prohibition against listening is concerned, under FCC regulations you still do not have the lawful right to repeat what you have heard, or acknowledge that you heard anything. Rules of the FCC pertaining to overhearing radio transmissions not intended for yourself still apply, including the part about not using what you have heard for your personal gain. PT]
SOLOMON@mis.arizona.edu (03/01/90)
> [Moderator's Note: Even though cordless phones are not treated as > cellular phones where the prohibition against listening is concerned, > under FCC regulations you still do not have the lawful right to repeat > what you have heard, or acknowledge that you heard anything. Rules of > the FCC pertaining to overhearing radio transmissions not intended for > yourself still apply, including the part about not using what you have > heard for your personal gain. PT] From "The Wall Street Journal" Wednesday, November 29, 1989, pp. B1: "Callers on Cordless Phones Surrender Privacy Rights" If Scott C. Tyler had confined his phone conversations to conventional - instead of cordless - telephones, he might have avoided prison. Instead, in 1984 he was sentenced to 10 years for conspiracy and theft, and served four months before being released on probation. The Scott County, Iowa, sheriff's office says its investigation was prompted by information obtained in nine months' monitoring of the Tyler family's cordless phone. The local police department was investigating Mr. Tyler separately. In a lawsuit brought in 1986, the Tylers have claimed that the sheriff's office's eavesdropping violated their constitutional right of privacy. The Dixon, Iowa, family, is seeking $53 million in damages from the sheriff's office and a neighboorhood couple that picked up and recorded the conversations. Thought the sheriff's office didn't have a warrant, it says it broke no laws. The Tyler's suit illustrates an unusual legal loophole created by technological advancement. The lower courts that have heard the case have ruled that the government is free to listen if calls are made on cordless phones. Now the Tylers have asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures should be extended to calls on cordless phones. The issues has never been considered by the Supreme Court, which is expected to decide by mid-December whether it will hear Mr. Tyler's appeal. Privacy-rights advocates say lower-court precedents run against the Tylers. Since the early 1980s, the courts have ruled in at least a half-dozen cases that private citizens talking on cordless phones don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore aren't covered by the Fourth Amendment. Constitutional lawyers say the courts' interpretation is particularly significant in light of a 1986 congressional amendment to the federal wiretap statute, which didn't include cordless phones in a list of electronic communications protected from surveillance without consent. Cellular or wireless telephones, which use more sophisticated technology than cordless phones, are protected under the legislation. ... In the Tyler's case, the family assumed that calls they made on the cordless phone were private, says Mr. Tyler, who ran a wholesale food business at the time. But a neighboring couple could pick up the conversations on their own cordless phone. In mid-1983, the neighbors mistakenly thought they overhead Mr. Tyler discussing a drug deal, he says. They contacted the sheriff's office, which told them to continue monitoring the calls, according to Mr. Tyler's suit, originally filed in federal district court in Davenport, Iowa. Mr. Tyler was convicted in 1984 on conspiracy and theft charges unrelated to narcotics. The tapes weren't admitted as evidence at the trial. Lawyers say the courts haven't yet directly considered the rights of the person on the other end of a cordless telephone conversation. But judges have indicated in releated decisions that if someone using a conventional phone knows the other party to a call is using a cordless phone, neither end of the discussion will be protected, says Michael Goldsmith, a professor at Brigham Young University's law school. ... In light of this, Alan M. Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor, says he now warns clients when he is speaking on a cordless telephone. ... ... [Moderator's Note: With cellular phones, the present law is you may not listen to the conversation, period. You may not tune your radio to a frequency used by celluar phones, period. You may not sell a radio which has the capability of tuning to these frequencies, with certain exceptions. You may not even be in possession of a radio thus enabled. With *cordless* phones, there is no prohibition against *listening*, or tuning your radio to receive these signals. There still remain the usual FCC prohibitions against *using or acknowledging* the transmissions overheard. Just as the government can be equipped with a court order permitting the interception of your *cordless* phone conversations for whatever use they wish to make of the information obtained, they can be equipped with a court order permitting interception of your cellular conversation. The information obtained from either media can be used against you if the proper papers have been obtained; likewise it cannot be used without having obtained consent from a court to gather it in the first place. But you, as a private citizen, can at least listen to the one at will, but not the other. Assuredly, neither is a secure media for things you don't want overheard, but neither is a landline for that matter. AMD and others seem to be forgetting the court rulings have not overturned or mooted other pre-exisiting FCC regs on the subject, but have merely addressed specific cases. PT]
kaufman@neon.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman) (03/02/90)
In article <4536@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> writes: >Who knows, maybe the next big Silicon Valley bombshell will be >revealed first on this group thanks to the popularity of the Merlin >cordless :-) Ant the Moderator replies: >[Moderator's Note: Even though cordless phones are not treated as >cellular phones where the prohibition against listening is concerned, >under FCC regulations you still do not have the lawful right to repeat >what you have heard, or acknowledge that you heard anything. Rules of >the FCC pertaining to overhearing radio transmissions not intended for >yourself still apply, including the part about not using what you have >heard for your personal gain. PT] Sure. And Mac The Knife only prints official press releases from Apple.... Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) [Auntie Moderator Notes a great deal of confusion on this point, as per the next message, whose author neglects an important distinction. PT
len@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Leonard P Levine) (03/03/90)
Neither John Higdon nor I meant to steal informaton via the portable phones. Thus the moderator's comments below: > [Moderator's Note: Even though cordless phones are not treated as > cellular phones where the prohibition against listening is concerned, > under FCC regulations you still do not have the lawful right to repeat > what you have heard, or acknowledge that you heard anything. Rules of > the FCC pertaining to overhearing radio transmissions not intended for > yourself still apply, including the part about not using what you have > heard for your personal gain. PT] Really do not apply to us. We are the "good guys" after all. I am sure, however, that there are others.... + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + | Leonard P. Levine e-mail len@evax.cs.uwm.edu | | Professor, Computer Science Office (414) 229-5170 | | University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Home (414) 962-4719 | | Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A. FAX (414) 229-6958 | + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) (03/03/90)
>[Moderator's Note: With cellular phones, the present law is you may >not listen to the conversation, period. You may not tune your radio to >a frequency used by celluar phones, period. You may not sell a radio >which has the capability of tuning to these frequencies, with certain >exceptions. You may not even be in possession of a radio thus enabled. I think the last two points are not quite right, but I may be wrong. I thought it was that the only actual receiving devices that are banned by the ECPA were ones that tuned *only* cellular-phone frequencies. Others, that happened to tune cell-phone channels in addition to other frequencies, were not restricted in any way. Thus the last point would be incorrect; otherwise everyone with an older TV that tuned UHF channels up to 83 would be in violation. The question of legal issues regarding removing cellular-frequency- tuning blocks that were built into a radio by the manufacturer has not yet really been addressed by the courts, I believe. Bob Grove, of Grove Enterprises, was pressured by Federal agents to stop advertising the service of restoring cellular coverage on scanners that had those frequencies blocked (the modification is usually a trivial diode snip or install, which controls the programming of the inboard microprocessor as to what frequencies it will accept for reception). He also stopped offering the mod to people who bought such scanners from his firm. But the *information* as to how to perform that mod is freely publishable and distributable. Bob did not fight the issue in court because of the cost and time involved, so the Feds won de facto, but the issue still can be raised by anyone with the resources and fortitude to fight the good fight and feed the lawyer-parasites that will profit from such an effort. The "you may not tune your radio to a frequency used by cellular phones" also needs a caveat. I believe the wording is actually that you are prohibited from *intentionally* tuning a cellular-phone conversation. Tuning across one while going from one end of the band to the other is not prohibited. [I was trying to retrieve the ECPA.1986 file from the Telecom archives before sending this, in order to be sure I get my facts straight, but I can't get any response from the archive system.] Regards, Will [Moderator's Note: Radio Shack also got a lot of pressure to make changes in the scanners they sell. You and John are correct in a couple of points: Old equipment on hand is not illegal. The manufacturing of new stuff is controlled. You no longer see a channel 83 spot on new televisions, for example. Older radios which can coincidentally tune cellular are okay, but newer radios have to be blocked. I don't think strictly speaking you are allowed to sell the older units, for the same reason Grove and Radio Shack are no longer allowed to sell them if they receive cellular. PT]
judice@sulaco.enet.dec.com (Lou Judice @KYO / DTN 323-4103) (03/03/90)
I believe that the good moderator is in error when he states that it is in anyway illegal to possess or sell a receiver capable of receiving cellular telephone calls. Scanners and more advanced monitoring receivers that are fully capable of receiving cellular transmissions are absolutely legal to use, own and sell - by anyone. Period. It is illegal to listen to cellular communications, as well as a couple of other classes of communications, namely broadcast studio to remote location links and certain other "press" communications. I believe this was slipped into the law to sooth the media industry during the ECPA introduction. /ljj
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (03/04/90)
"Lou Judice @KYO / DTN 323-4103" <judice@sulaco.enet.dec.com> writes: > I believe that the good moderator is in error when he states that it > is in anyway illegal to possess or sell a receiver capable of > receiving cellular telephone calls. So do I. Within thirty feet of where I'm sitting there are at least four radios capable of tuning both RPU and cellular bands. No one has ever notified me that posession of these instruments was in violation of some law. I have seen no provisions requiring them to be disabled, destroyed, or turned in somewhere. I would also like to see chapter and verse of any law preventing me from selling any or all of these radios should I desire to do so. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
gutierre@oblio.arc.nasa.gov (Robert Gutierrez) (03/05/90)
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes in V10, Iss. 133, Message 10 of 10: > Leonard P Levine <len@csd4.csd.uwm.edu> writes: > > ATT is currently marketing a portable office phone that connects with > > their Merlin system. Does anyone know if there are ANY security > > features available with that phone? > I'm so glad someone else opened this worm can. The only difference > between the Merlin phone and their ordinary cordless is the signaling > required to access the Merlin features and the displays to show > status. There is no "scrambling". [...] > [Moderator's Note: Even though cordless phones are not treated as > cellular phones where the prohibition against listening is concerned, > under FCC regulations you still do not have the lawful right to repeat > what you have heard,........ Exactly right. And for the casual listener, like me, that is crystal-clear. But for the company spy, there are no such things as "FCC Regulations". With his white unmarked van, scanner, Diamond D-77 antenna, and VHS HiFi portable VCR (with an 8 hour tape, using the HiFi tracks only) parked near the comapny in question, it 'provides' a wealth of information that he could not get otherwise. And in today's atmosphere of "Wall Street" ethics, as long as he isn't caught........ I'm sure AT&T has no plans of trying to submit this add-on as a contract proposal to any govt agency...as soon as they found out how secure-less it is, they'd be laughed right out of the room (more like kicked out). This is just outright dangerous. As soon as any good company spy saw the AT&T commercial and the antenna protruding from the phone, I'm sure they would have been cheering AT&T for making their job sooooo much easier. No more having to listen to 13 year old girls talking about their first boyfriend....now they can get the inside scoop on the next merger The Hot Comapny is going to make, and it's off to Drexel-Burnham to buy the stock....(oops, they just went under, didn't they) > [.......... Rules of > the FCC pertaining to overhearing radio transmissions not intended for > yourself still apply, including the part about not using what you have > heard for your personal gain. PT] This is NOT a flame, personal or otherwise, but if the company spy could have that line printed on toilet paper, we'd probably know what he would do with it. Robert Gutierrez NASA Science Internet Network Operations. Moffett Feild, California. "I'm not a spy....but I play one on TV..."
tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) (03/05/90)
Interesting thing I have noticed about radio receivers with blocked cellular coverage. The cheap ones are easy to modify (like my Radio Shack PRO2005....just clip a diode), but the expen$ive ones, like the ICOM ($1K+) don't block cellular coverage at all! I have the feeling that the blocking on the Tandy unit may have had more to do with the fact that Radio Shack also markets celluar phones, rather than any part of the ECPA. I just pulled out my copy of the ECPA, and it seems to say that manufacture, advertising, distribution, etc of devices that are EXPRESSLY designed for eavesdropping on the forbidden communications are prohibited. Maybe this is where Grove Enterprises got in trouble with the feds....they were advertising that they would remove the blocking of cellular coverage on the radios that they sell. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP