TELECOM Moderator <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu> (01/10/90)
The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling that conversations on cordless phones are not private. Justices turned down an appeal by Scott Tyler, of Dixon, Iowa, whose conversations on a cordless phone were overheard by neighbors who called police when they suspected he had broken the law. Tyler was convicted in 1984 of criminal conspiracy and theft in connection with business arrangements that had been discussed over his cordless phone. He then sued his neighbors and the police, contending the eavesdropping was an unconstitutional invasion of his privacy. 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 readers of the Digest know, cordless phones use low-power radio signals in the 46-49 megahertz range that broadcast conversations a short distance and can be intercepted by other cordless phones, scanners and some other types of radio equipment. "Because there was no justifiable expectation of privacy, the interceptions did not violate the Fourth Amendment," the judge decided. An appellate court agreed and rejected Tyler's appeal. In the appeal to the Supreme Court, Tyler's attornies acknowledged that conversations on cordless phones are more susceptible to casual interception than traditional phone calls. But, they argued, that "does not justify ignoring the Fourth Amendment entirely any more than crossed wires in a phone exchange short-circuit all Fourth Amendment safeguards." The justices did not explain their decision, which was announced by an unsigned order. Nonetheless, the action can be used as precedent in other similar cases which may and have arisen elsewhere. Stephen Shapiro, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union 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) He said it also takes away the privacy protection of callers using a regular phone who, unknowingly, speak with someone using a cordless phone. Cordless phones, which are in use in an estimated twenty-five percent of American homes are not covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), which protects conversations on wired and cellular phones from interception without a judge's permission. Patrick Townson
"John R. Levine" <johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> (01/11/90)
Alan Dershowitz, normally a fairly reasonable guy, was all upset about
the Court's decision and how it would inconvenience all of the users
of cordless phones. I don't have to explain to any readers here that
the technology used in cordless phones makes any expectation of
privacy unreasonable and to attempt to legislate otherwise is spitting
into the wind.
If we step back a little here, what has really happened is that a
technology has been implemented willy-nilly without a thorough
understanding of what it really is or what its implications are, and
when people find out later what has happened they get all upset. Is
there anyone around trying to educate the population in general and
the legal profession in particular about social implications of
technical change? If so, they're not doing a very good job. I
suppose if I really care so much I should do something about it
myself.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl
PS: I wouldn't dream of mentioning Caller ID again. Oops, I just did.
Sorry.
John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650
johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl
"Now, we are all jelly doughnuts."
[Moderator's Mote: Caller-ID? Gaak! You devil, you! :) PT]David Tamkin <dattier@chinet.chi.il.us> (01/13/90)
Has anyone yet looked into the situation of a person who picks up a wired phone to place a call, but the callee answers on a cordless phone? Has anyone yet looked into the situation of someone who picks up a wired phone to answer a call that, it turns out, is being placed from a cordless phone? If the person on the wired phone has no rightful expectation of privacy (especially in the second situation, where the person on the wired phone didn't even place the call), how is he or she to know that the call is legally monitorable? Is one to assume that no telephone conversation is private at all? In ancient times recording devices were required to emit periodic beeps to warn the party at the other end that the call was being recorded. Maybe we need something similar for cordless phones. David Tamkin P.O Box 813 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-0813 | BIX: dattier dattier@chinet.chi.il.us (708) 518-6769 (312) 693-0591 | GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN No two Chinet users agree about this (or anything else). | CIS: 73720,1570