telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) (11/27/89)
(A comment to an advice columnist in the [Chicago Sun Times] on
Tuesday, November 21, and the columnist's reply.)
Dear Zazz:
My husband and I keep track of our child through a wireless Radio
Shack intercom. We leave this baby monitor on all the time. Now we
have learned that a neighbor in our apartment building brags of how he
enjoys violating our privacy. He has a radio scanner that enables him
to listen to our intercom. Supposedly, he can hear everything said in
our apartment. He also listens to the conversations of neighbors who
use cordless telephones. We have stopped using the intercom. Should I
confront our neighbor about this?
Signed,
Bugged
Dear Bugged,
I spoke to folks at Radio Shack, who confirmed that someone with a
scanner could pick up the soundtrack of life in a nearby apartment. (A
scanner isn't even necessary. I've picked up another baby in my
neighborhood -- a real screamer -- on my baby's monitor.)
For safety's sake, don't stop using your monitor. These intercoms can
be lifesavers, letting you know if your child is in trouble in another
part of the house. But do consider confronting your neighbor.
In most communities, peeping toms can be prosecuted. If you could
prove to police and a court that your neighbor is maliciously using
electronic equipment to keep tabs on your private lives, you might be
able to file charges. In any case, confronting him could scare him
into cutting it out.
How might you confront him? One day, lean into your baby's monitor and
say, "Hey, buddy, this message is for you. If you don't get your ears
out of our home, and your nose out of our business, we're going to try
our best to get you put in jail."
========= End of Columnist's Remarks =========
What a laugh! All I can say is if the average member of the public
knew as much about cordless phones, cellular phones and sundry
'wireless intercoms' as the readers of TELECOM Digest they would
*never* use such devices with any expectation of privacy; recently
passed and poorly thought out federal laws not withstanding.
And if our dear advice columnist -- he was hired when Ann Landers left
to go to the [Chicago Tribune] -- had any brains, he would not make
the suggestion that the Chicago Poh-leece and our courts have the time
or inclination to give an iota about such wickedness by the neighbor.
I hope your Thanksgiving holiday was as pleasant as mine. What a pity
Monday is coming around <so soon>, and another work-week is starting.
See you tomorrow!
Patrick Townsonjohn@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (11/29/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0532m10a@chinacat.lonestar.org>, telecom@eecs.nwu. edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > What a laugh! All I can say is if the average member of the public > knew as much about cordless phones, cellular phones and sundry > 'wireless intercoms' as the readers of TELECOM Digest they would > *never* use such devices with any expectation of privacy; recently > passed and poorly thought out federal laws not withstanding. One of those "poorly thought out federal laws" concerns the monitoring of cellular traffic. Scanners are blocked from receiving the 800 MHz cellular band and I've heard that you can get at least a slap on the wrist for violating these provisions (listening to cellular calls). From where I am sitting at the keyboard, I can see two communications receivers that I use in conjunction with my work. Both are perfectly capable of tuning from low band VHF right on through UHF and everything in between. Are these radios now clandestine? Am I OK as long as I don't saunter over and turn one on and tune it to a cellular frequency? And if I do, who is going to know? What are the detection and enforcement provisions of the cellular privacy law? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
doug@letni.uucp (Doug Davis) (11/30/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0535m06@chinacat.lonestar.org> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >One of those "poorly thought out federal laws" concerns the monitoring >of cellular traffic. Scanners are blocked from receiving the 800 MHz >cellular band and I've heard that you can get at least a slap on the >wrist for violating these provisions (listening to cellular calls). This is incorrect, some scanner manufacturers voluntarily limit some frequences 46-49mhz and 820-860mhz, Uniden comes to mind, However most do not, Radio Shack comes to mind, actually in the current RS catalog they all but advertise the fact their scanners can "eavesdrop" on the cellular band. At least some of the newer phones are starting to include something to the effect that since the telephone is a transmitter it is possible for someone to listen into your conversation. I think this is done more as a CYA for the company rather than trying to be informative. Anyway about 7 or so years ago I got into some legal action in a case where one neighbor in a rival company was allegedly listening into another neighbor's phone conversations. This was (again allegedly) done by unplugging the base unit of the telephone and then turning on the handset. This was done back in the days where there were no digital out of band signaling for base activation, or security codes. The handset just blasted out a tone which the base was listening for, after which if the handset had carrier on whatever frequency was appoperate it would turn on it's audio amp and supposably you were connected to "your" base. (But I'm deviating from the point.) Anyway the story goes the first neighbor thought he was being clever and bragged about being able to listen into the second neighbors phone conversations. Eventually his kids picked up on it and bragged about it to the second neighbors kids. The story finally made it back to the second neighbor who proceeded to feed the first neighbor his telephone. The whole thing wound up in court where all the charges were dropped against the first neighbor even after it was proved that yes you really could listen into other peoples convesations via many means. The judge ruled that there was no way to prove the first neighbor was actually listening in since the second neighbor was unable to provide witnesses that actually saw the alledged easedropping. Just that he had the "means" to listen in. The second neighbor however had to pay a small fine for assualt. This was one of the cases that lead the FCC to rule that "easedropping" itself was a bad thing, but possession of monitoring equipment didn't necessarily prove intent. >everything in between. Are these radios now clandestine? Am I OK as >long as I don't saunter over and turn one on and tune it to a cellular >frequency? And if I do, who is going to know? Your okay to possess the equipment as long as you do not use it to "easedrop" on conversations. BTW, most older T.V.s can tune a good portion of the cellular band, it's right above channel 82, just don't listen into anything you might hear. >What are the detection and enforcement provisions of the cellular >privacy law? Probably similar to the same laws that prevent you from receiveing scrambled satellite signals and decoding them. Doug Davis/1030 Pleasant Valley Lane/Arlington/Texas/76015/817-467-3740 {texsun, motown!sys1, uiucuxc!sys1 lawnet, attctc, texbell} letni!doug
erc@khijol.UUCP (Edwin R. Carp) (11/30/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0535m06@chinacat.lonestar.org>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > What are the detection and enforcement provisions of the cellular > privacy law? In my opinion, none at all. The Communications Act of 1934 says that the FCC has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over communications in the US. That means police scanners, radar detectors, everything (Virginia | Vermont, are you listening?). It doesn't mean jack what the local yokels say (although it could get nasty until the Feds agree with you). I'm not sure that the privacy law would stand up to the Supreme Court and the Act. Ed Carp N7EKG/5 (28.3-28.5) erc@khijol Austin, Tx; (home) (512) 445-2044 Snail Mail: 1800 E. Stassney #1205 Austin, Tx 78744
levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) (11/30/89)
I came across the following message in a FidoNet echo and thought that
it might be of interest to Telecom readers.
============================================================
From: Dave Minor @ 930/1
To: Cliff Peterson
Cliff, I wanted to add a committ about the privacy of common carrier
communcations. I work for a long distance company and you are
correct, there is nothing illegal about encrypting communcations. In
fact, we provide that service for some of our customers.
To tell a quick story about privacy, years ago a technician was
checking a problem with a line. In his efforts, he came accross a
private conversation between two individuals negotiating a contract to
have someone murdered (no lie!)!
What this tech was supposed to when checking a line was if he heard
any conversation AT ALL he was to IMMEDIATLY move to another circuit
and wait till the needed circuit was clear. Instead, he listened to
the conversation, took notes, and reported it to his supervisor.
Expecting to get an "attaboy" for saving a person's life, he got fired
for violating the individual's privacy!
Needless to say, there is nothing illegal about encryption and common
carriers are considered PRIVATE communcations!
# Origin: Horizon RBBS 214-881-9346 & 214-424-3831 HST (8:930/1.0)
* Origin: Network Gateway to RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
Ken Levitt - via FidoNet node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edumihalo@chinet.uucp (William Mihalo) (11/30/89)
I'm surprised that somebody would be so outraged about eavesdropping.
The purpose of a baby monitor is to listen to the slightest sounds in
a baby's room. Most monitors only have two frequencies (A or B),
therefore it shouldn't be a surprise that someone else in your
neighborhood can listen in.
Incidentally, a couple of years ago my wife and next door neighbor
did the following:
house 1 house 2
transmitter a freq transmitter b freq
receiver b freq receiver a freq
The above arrangement established a "full duplex" speakerphone system
using baby monitors. Whenever our kid was next door we would power-up
the system. The nice thing about this, is you could talk to your kid
if he was starting to get out of hand at the neighbor's house and vice
versa. Also my wife and the people next door could talk to each other
without using the standard telephone.
I wonder if the above arrangement violated any existing telephone
regulations.
Bill Mihalo
chinet!calumet!wem (uucp)
or
chinet!mihalotad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) (12/04/89)
Regarding Doug Davis's comments, I am not aware of any scanner receiver manufacturers that limit coverage in the 46-49 MHz region. Also, Doug says that Radio Shack does not limit coverage in the 800 MHz celluar area on their scanners. Not true. They started blocking these frequncies in their scanners even before passage of the ECPA, although the radios can be modified back to full coverage. Some owners have reported that Radio Shack has refused to service these radios after the cellular mod has been made! The mod consists of one clipped diode. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: Actually, one diode (from D-12, I think) is clipped and re-inserted at D-9 to gain full 800 coverage as well as 68-88 megs. Unfortunatly, the scanner loses 30-50 megs in the process; but who cares? And even losing 30-50, you can use the 'magic number' calculation to bring 46.61 => 46.97 back at 68.01 => 68.37 and 49.67 => 49.99 back at 71.07 => 71.39. The IF is 10.7; just double it (21.4) and add to the desired frequency. It isn't the best reception, but it works. PT]
russ@alliant.com (Russell McFatter) (12/05/89)
The Communications Act of 1934 actually goes a bit further: it basically states (as a result of international accord) that the airwaves belong to the PUBLIC, not the government. The concept here is that any signal which is beamed into YOUR airspace belongs to you, and you can do with it as you please subject to certain restrictions for reasons of national security. The concept here is "personal use" of material which is intentionally or unintentionally sent into your property: Just as with broadcast TV, you can (watch / videotape) to your heart's content, as long as the material is for your own personal use. You cannot sell, or in many cases give away, such information if it is "obviously" of a restricted / copyrighted nature. Under the Act, if you are to receive a transmission of a "secret" nature, you are obliged not to divulge the information to anyone (even for free), but may listen to it yourself. There are three recent examples of subsequent laws which appear to violate the Act: (1) States which ban radar detectors, which are effectively radio receivers. The Communications Act of 1934 is frequently used in defense of radar detectors (although your rights for receiving signals while MOBILE, on public property, are not clear). (2) Descrambling satellite transmissionswas made illegal not too long ago. This is another case of a (presumably contestable) situation where you are prohibited from using, even for your own personal reasons, information beamed into your house without your consent. (3) Protection for cellular telephones. I think that half the reason for the Communications Act of 1934 is one that we are seeing right here: If, by voluntarily transmitting a low-power signal on an authorized channel, in such a manner that the signal invades my neighbor's property, can I now seek to make it illegal for my neighbor to listen to that frequency ever again? Is the liability my NEIGHBOR'S (for listening), or MINE (for beaming the signal into his house)? This is what the Act seeks to resolve: that airwaves are public in nature, and cannot be monopolized by people who intend to use the resource as their own private communications device. If I wanted my baby's noises to be secure from prying ears, I could have easily trotted down to Radio Shack and purchased a wired(!) intercom that doesn't pollute the airwaves, or (what a concept!) put the baby where I can hear it without electronic assistance. (A bit more reliable, don't you think?) If I'm really bent on wireless intercoms inside my home, I should either accept the fact that I am voluntarily BROADCASTING, or at least take measures on my own to see that the transmissions do not leave my house. Most manufacturers of cordless phones (even some cellular phones), baby monitors, and other "Part 49" gizmos DO alert you to the fact that wireless communications defy privacy. This is not merely our law, but a law of nature as well; to legislate otherwise will bring us nothing but headaches. Russ McFatter russ@alliant.Alliant.COM
tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) (12/06/89)
In article <1781@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: > Regarding Doug Davis's comments, I am not aware of any scanner > receiver manufacturers that limit coverage in the 46-49 MHz region. > Also, Doug says that Radio Shack does not limit coverage in the 800 > MHz celluar area on their scanners. Not true. They started blocking > these frequncies in their scanners even before passage of the ECPA, > although the radios can be modified back to full coverage. Some > owners have reported that Radio Shack has refused to service these > radios after the cellular mod has been made! The mod consists of one > clipped diode. > [Moderator's Note: Actually, one diode (from D-12, I think) is clipped > and re-inserted at D-9 to gain full 800 coverage as well as 68-88 > megs. Unfortunatly, the scanner loses 30-50 megs in the process; but > who cares? And even losing 30-50, you can use the 'magic number' > calculation to bring 46.61 => 46.97 back at 68.01 => 68.37 and 49.67 > => 49.99 back at 71.07 => 71.39. The IF is 10.7; just double it (21.4) > and add to the desired frequency. It isn't the best reception, but it > works. PT] Followup note: Not true! In the PRO2004, all it took was a clipped diode to restore cellular. If it was re-inserted at D9, then you get 100 more memories. I have the PRO2005, which just takes one clipped diode...nothing inserted to get the cellular restored. Neither mod causes you to lose any coverage in the 30-50 MHz range, or anywhere else. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: I was discussing the PRO-34; sorry this was not made clear in the original message. PT]
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (12/10/89)
In article <1887@accuvax.nwu.edu> Russell McFatter <russ@alliant.alliant.com> writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 556, message 1 of 7 >If I wanted my baby's noises to be secure from prying ears, I could >have easily trotted down to Radio Shack and purchased a wired(!) >intercom that doesn't pollute the airwaves, or (what a concept!) put >the baby where I can hear it without electronic assistance. (A bit With the proliferation of wireless devices, the public (and the public's representative--congress) seems to have become numb to the reality that the airwaves are nothing more than a big party line. To use this big party line, people have to cooperate, realize that their use can be monitored by others, and accept the laws of physics that relate thereto. I had to field a call once from a very irate person who had been informed that the reason her garage door opened occasionally on its own was because of signal from my client's FM radio station. Garage door openers operate at a frequency that is roughly the third harmonic of the center of the FM band. While it is possible that a broadcast could have measureable output on the third harmonic, it would be unlikely that it would exceed FCC limits (which are well defined). Coincidentally, I had been doing other work on the transmitter and happened to have measured the station's third harmonic and found it to well exceed FCC requirements for suppression. When I informed the person of this, she became even more irate and told me that she didn't care about FCC rules, it was the radio station's problem, pure and simple. Not having a lot of time to waste, I directed her to the statement on her unit which declares that the user must accept any interferrence and must not interfere with any other devices or services. She felt very wronged but I am sure that she gave no thought to the big picture--that a radio station serving hundreds of thousands of listeners be put on the same priority footing as her (probably defective) garage door remote control. I told her it was her problem to remedy and it would have to be at her expense. Sorry, that's reality. >If I'm really bent on wireless >intercoms inside my home, I should either accept the fact that I am >voluntarily BROADCASTING, or at least take measures on my own to see >that the transmissions do not leave my house. Most manufacturers of >cordless phones (even some cellular phones), baby monitors, and other >"Part 49" gizmos DO alert you to the fact that wireless communications >defy privacy. This is not merely our law, but a law of nature as >well; to legislate otherwise will bring us nothing but headaches. But, of course. Using the party line analogy, those with experience in this area have observed that sometimes people fight over the use of the party line, just as they sometimes do with the radio spectrum. Perhaps it's my radio background, but whenever I use a cellular phone, the thought never leaves my mind that the conversation is on the air and that at least someone else, not a party to the conversation, is listening. If the message is critically private, we move to landline. It's like breathing and eating. That's why this privacy flap is so funny. If you want to use the public airwaves for private communications, then it is up to you to encode them sufficiently to keep them private. But for someone to intentionally bug their own house (baby monitor), put it (unencoded) on the air, and then get angry when someone does the inevitable evesdropping, well... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (12/11/89)
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: } Perhaps it's my radio background, but whenever I use a cellular phone, } the thought never leaves my mind that the conversation is on the air } and that at least someone else, not a party to the conversation, is } listening. If the message is critically private, we move to landline. } It's like breathing and eating. That's why this privacy flap is so } funny. If you want to use the public airwaves for private } communications, then it is up to you to encode them sufficiently to } keep them private. In Tom Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger" one of the intelligence gathering methods used was intercept of cellular phone conversations by satellites. How real was this use in a fictional story? Is it possible. I would assume it's picking up the cell transmitters, not the 4 watt portables, but... Jim Budler jim@eda.com ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim compuserve: 72415,1200 applelink: D4619 voice: +1 408 986-9585 fax: +1 408 748-1032
kevin@gatech.edu (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) (12/13/89)
So the consensus seems to be that the neighbor is certainly not doing anything ILLEGAL by listening to the broadcast from the wireless intercom. What if he gets one one the same frequency, and puts it next to his stereo (which he leaves running 24 hours a day)? Who gets priority? Is this a first-come/first-serve situation? Kevin Kleinfelter @ Management Science America, Inc (404) 239-2347 gatech!nanovx!msa3b!kevin
ccplumb@rose.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb) (12/13/89)
In article <2001@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> writes: >But for someone to intentionally bug their own house (baby monitor), >put it (unencoded) on the air, and then get angry when someone does >the inevitable evesdropping, well... I think it's fair to be a little annoyed at the *impolite* behaviour of the neighbour, but I agree that I don't think it's illegal. If you want privacy, go for wires or encryption. That's one of the things I'm looking forward to with digital telephony... the ability to encrypt my conversations. Straight analog schemes do horrible things to fidelity and keep getting out of tune. But once I've got a digital channel, feeding it through a handy DES chip would keep out most would-be eavesdroppers. -Colin
russ@alliant.com (Russell McFatter) (12/15/89)
In article <2111@accuvax.nwu.edu> msa3b!kevin@gatech.edu (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) writes: >What if he gets one one the same frequency, and puts it next to his >stereo (which he leaves running 24 hours a day)? Who gets priority? >Is this a first-come/first-serve situation? There are actually plenty of FCC regulations to cover situations of this type. The general overview, as I understand it, works like this: Although FCC regulations even prohibit low-power (Part 49) stations from causing intentional interference to each other, it's very unlikely that they would get involved in such a case. One of the two stations would have to prove not only that the interference exists, but that the intent of the other party is malicious. Even if a formal complaint were filed with supporting information, the FCC's first act would usually be to suggest a peacable, voluntary coexistence (possibly by getting one of the stations to switch to a different frequency if possible). Beyond that, a civil suit would probably have to be filed to get any action. What, then, of the guy with the baby monitor next to his stereo? Nothing will probably happen to him, unless the neighbors decide to take him to court (where, if they can prove intentional interference, the FCC's regulations will be on their side). Many questions would be asked in such a case: Was the defendant using this setup for a legitimate purpose, or purely to harass and annoy? (Did he listen to the monitor's receiver 24 hours a day?) Was it actually necessary? Did either party consider alternate measures, such as a wired intercom, or remote (wired) speakers for the stereo? The cost of doing all this would most likely outweigh (by a few thousand times) the cost of a wired intercom. How many people bought a CB radio and gave up on it because of all the interference and noise? The baby monitor in this case would probably end up in the attic next to the CB. Russ McFatter [russ@alliant.Alliant.COM] Std. disclaimer applies.
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (12/15/89)
"Kevin P. Kleinfelter" <msa3b!kevin@gatech.edu> writes: > What if he gets one one the same frequency, and puts it next to his > stereo (which he leaves running 24 hours a day)? Who gets priority? > Is this a first-come/first-serve situation? This is what cooperation is all about. "Professional" users of the airwaves have known for decades that the only way maximum use can be made of the spectrum is by mature, enlightened interaction. If your scenario can resemble reality, it is good motivation for *not* turning over the airwaves to the masses. To answer your question, if the people involved couldn't get together and work out an arrangement (change frequencies, time share, etc.) then I guess they'll just have to slug it out or go back to the jungle from whence they came. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
sirakide%cell.mot.COM@uunet.uu.net (Dean Sirakides) (12/16/89)
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: >In Tom Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger" one of the intelligence >gathering methods used was intercept of cellular phone conversations >by satellites. How real was this use in a fictional story? Is it >possible. I would assume it's picking up the cell transmitters, not >the 4 watt portables, but... In his book, you'll recall, the bad guys used *portables* to make their calls. Portable cellular phones transmit at a maximum of 0.6 watts and usually less to conserve battery life; it seems hard to believe that this would be detectable from space. The base sites use 50+ watts, so detecting them may be more feasible, although, it is commonplace to use directional transmit antennas, further complicating things. The whole situation is made worse by the pleathora of frequencies used and the variety of cell locations. When I read the book, I wondered why everyone went through the trouble of a satellite and supercomputer. After all, cellular calls still make use of land lines. Why not just tap the trunk at the EMX where ALL cellular calls pass? Dean Sirakides uunet|motcid|sirakide Motorola Cellular Arlington Heights, IL Of course I speak for myself, not my employer...
jimmy@denwa.uucp (Jim Gottlieb) (12/16/89)
In article <2058@accuvax.nwu.edu> jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: >In Tom Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger" one of the intelligence >gathering methods used was intercept of cellular phone conversations >by satellites. How real was this use in a fictional story? Is it >possible. It's very real. And it's not just cellular conversations. I was rather surprised when I visited a satellite dish-owning friend and he showed me how he could listen in to _regular_ long distance telephone calls. And it didn't take any fancy equipment. I guess we can be thankful that the use of satellite for telephone calls is declining (these calls were all from Alaska to Florida), but this is just a reminder that you can never assume that ANY call is completely private. Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: <jimmy@denwa.uucp> or <jimmy@pic.ucla.edu> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy> V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454