Thomas Lapp <thomas%mvac23.uucp@udel.edu> (01/11/90)
And in a comment on another posting in the same issue in which the Supreme Court ruled that conversations over cordless phones are not considered private: > A federal judge in Davenport, Iowa threw out the suit, saying users of > cordless phones should know that the technology used in their phones > makes it possible to overhear a conversation without a wiretap. As > [...] > who argued the matter before the Supreme Court claimed "this decision > deprives millions of Americans the privacy rights they *think* they > have when they are talking at home on a cordless phone." (emphasis > mine) What bothers me about this is that if users of cordless phones should be aware that they can be overheard, the Supreme Court should also apply the same reasoning to cellular telephones since it is OBVIOUS that carphones, etc. use radio waves (the antenna tends to give it away :-). It seems inconsistant that the ECPA protects cellular phones but not cordless phones; or vice versa, that the Supreme Court can rule that cordless phones are not private, but not strike down the ECPA on that same point. > He said it also takes away the privacy protection of callers using a > regular phone who, unknowingly, speak with someone using a cordless phone. Now I could see this side of it, although most of the time, the quality difference between cordless and corded telephones is such that most people can tell which is being used at the other end. And likewise, most people know that they are dialing a cellular telephone when they do so, although the quality difference is less noticable (in my opinion). - tom internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Europe Bitnet: THOMAS1@GRATHUN1 Location: Newark, DE, USA Quote : Virtual Address eXtension. Is that like a 9-digit zip code? [Moderator's Note: There is no logical reason why cordless phones are not protected by ECPA and cellular phones are. The only reason for this discrepancy is that cellular phone companies have big $$ to spend on aggressive attornies. Actually, there is no valid reason for ECPA, period, but that's a story for another day. PT]
jwb@cit5.cit.oz (Jim Breen) (01/12/90)
In article <2784@accuvax.nwu.edu>, thomas%mvac23.uucp@udel.edu (Thomas Lapp) writes: > What bothers me about this is that if users of cordless phones should > be aware that they can be overheard, the Supreme Court should also > apply the same reasoning to cellular telephones since it is OBVIOUS > that carphones, etc. use radio waves (the antenna tends to give it > away :-). ........ It is interesting to note how Australian law differs here. We have no general right to privacy, but there is a strict law on phone tapping and on recording phone calls. Whether listening in to a cordless or cellular call on your el cheapo scanner constitutes a tap, or is just legitimate use of your right to listen to any frequency you like has yet to be tested in court (and may never be.) Recording of a phone call is a definite no-no. There was a very funny case a couple of years ago where the leader of the opposition Liberal (i.e. conservative) Party in Victoria had a long car phone conversation with Andrew Peacock, then Federal deputy leader (also in opposition) of that party. Andrew made a lot of highly uncomplimentary comments, complete with plenty of four-letter words, about his colleague and leader, John Howard. Of course, a ham with a scanner and recorder was listening in, and within minutes the choice bits of the conversation were being played on commercial radio. The fur flew, and Andrew lost his job. (He eventually rolled Howard and became leader. In his victory Press conference he promised to stay awy from car phones.) I believe the ham got a bit of a wrist slapping and was told not to do it again. No charges were laid. The US has a long history of listening to other people's phone conversations. For years the CIA happily read all the car phones of the Soviet leadership. This was one of the reasons behind the (understandable) distress over the release of the "Pentagon Papers". Some of the material in those papers could only have been obtained from car phone taps, and thus the release effectively blew (and destroyed) the whole sigint operation. _______ Jim Breen (jwb@cit5.cit.oz) Department of Robotics & /o\----\\ \O Digital Technology. Chisholm Inst. of Technology /RDT\ /|\ \/| -:O____/ PO Box 197 Caulfield East 3145 Australia O-----O _/_\ /\ /\ (ph) +61 3 573 2552 (fax) +61 3 572 1298
woolsey@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Jeff Woolsey) (02/02/90)
I saw an article in the SF Chronicle (from the NYT, I think) on
January 31, about how IBM and Motorola are joining forces to promote
digital radio for remote data access for field personnel. A few
paragraphs into the article (on the back page of the section in the
Chron), the amazing statement is made that (paraphrasing) "radio waves
can penetrate into buildings where cellular telephone waves cannot".
I kid you not. I wish I were.
Jeff Woolsey Microtec Research, Inc +1 408 980-1300
...!apple!netcom!woolsey ...!amdcad!sun0!woolsey
[Moderator's Note: I've never really expected a lot from the {San
Fransisco Chronicle} in the way of accuracy, but I'm amazed my
competitor, the {New York Times}, would have let that get past them. PT]