pm@endor.harvard.edu (Paul Mazzarelli) (09/14/86)
============================================================================ The following is from the September 1986 issue of MONITORING TIMES (Published by Grove Enterprises, Inc. P.O. Box 98, Brasstown, North Carolina 28902). This first item is excerpted from a letter by Robert Horvitz, Government Affairs Liason for The Association of North American Radio Clubs (ANARC) regarding the Communications Act: ANARC has called for hearings to discuss the radio provisions of the bill and to examine alternatives. We've circulated a list of amendments that would alleviate most of our concerns. We support the general goal of the bill, but believe that privacy of wireless communications can best be assured through technology, not by making criminals out of law-abiding radio users. Senate staffers acknowledge that our amendments have merit, and hearings might be useful, but they're not convinced that many people share our concerns. This is a political process, and SENATORS ARE NOT GETTING MUCH MAIL PROTESTING THE BILL'S TREATMENT OF RADIO. YOUR SENATOR MUST HEAR FROM YOU. CALL, TELEGRAPH, OR SEND A MAILGRAM to your Senator and the Members of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce Commitees as soon as you get this. Express your views. Ask for hearings and more time to assess the bill's consequences. Say whatever you think. But SAY IT NOW! Otherwise, you could soon be exposed to Federal criminal and civil liabilities merely by using a scanner. ============================================ (All emphasis in the above is the author's.) The following is a sample letter to your Senators from the same issue of Monitoring Times; since they want this passed around to as many people as possible, they won't mind it being posted in its entirety here: Senator------------------------ ----------------------Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator----------------------: I am writing to vigorously protest the passage of Senate Bill 2575, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. As written, substantive portions of the bill are illogical; worse, they reflect considerable ignorance of the laws of physics and the realities of the consumer marketplace. The mobile telephone industry has convinced Congress, and is now working on the Senate, that cellular mobile telephone calls are inherently private. They are not. As with other forms of mobile radio they are--and always have been--readily accessible to casual monitoring with widely manufactured consumer entertainment radios and even television sets. In an apparent effort to boost a lagging marketing program, the cellular telephone industry's powerful Washington lobby is obviously attempting to legislate legitimacy to the invalid claim that cellular mobile telephones are inherently private. At the present time there are, according to independent estimates, some 7 million scanners and 19 million shortwave radios capable of receiving frequencies which would be outlawed by the pending legislation. Many of these frequencies are assigned on a shared basis. Clearly, it is not only impossible to avoid encountering them, it is necessary in order to determine their sources in cases of interference, frequency studies for license applications, and other legitimate needs of access to a public resource. All other users of the radio spectrum are made aware that, by its very nature of penetration of private dwellings, radio signals may be monitored by anyone who wishes to tune them in. Only the mobile telephone industry expects a law to be granted in their interest to forbid Americans from fully utilizing pre-existing radio and television equipment manufactured under present law and purchased by them in good faith. Inexpensive devices exist which can be added to any communications equipment to encrypt their transmissions, making casual interception impossible. The mobile telephone industry is well aware of this, but would sooner have the burden of non-interception placed on the American public rather than pay the minor up-front cost of adequately designing their own equipment. Adequate law presently exists prohibiting the intrusion of uninvited listeners into private communications and the subsequent use of the information so obtained (the Communications Act of 1934, section 705 as recently amended); superseding this workable regulation with a bad law that is totally unenforceable and illogical in its basic tenets makes a mockery of the judicial system. In conclusion, I am in favor of protecting the right of privacy of the individual when such a right has a reasonable expectation. I am opposed to any legislation motivated entirely by corporate profit and which, by its self-serving interest, is unreasonable and unenforceable. Please consider the testimony of so many well-informed individuals to bring correct perspective to the hearings on this subject in spite of the highly financed special interests' attempts to obscure the facts. Sincerely, =========================== (End of sample letter. List of Senators, addresses and Washington phone numbers follows. Much thanks to Chris Tucker of North Kingstown, Rhode Island, for having the patience to type this into his Commodore.) Hart=Hart Senate Office Building Dirksen=Dirksen Senate Office Building Russell=Russell Senate Office Building Address your letter to: The Honorable (Senator's Name) (Number and office building name) Washington, D.C. 20510 Name Office Bldg Phone ---- ------ ------ -------- James Abdnor(R-SD) SH-309 Hart 224-2321 Mark Andrews(R-ND) SH-724 Hart 224-2043 William L. Armstrong(R-CO) SH-258 Hart 224-5941 Max Baucus(D-MT) SH-706 Hart 224-2651 Loyd D. Bentsen(D-TX) SH-703 Hart 224-5922 Joseph R. Biden, Jr.(D-DE) SR-453 Russell 224-5042 Jeff Bingaman(D-NM) SH-502 Hart 224-5521 David L. Boren(D-OK) SR-453 Russell 224-4721 Rudy Boschwitz(R-NM) SH-506 Hart 224-5641 Bill Bradley(D-NJ) SH-731 Hart 224-3224 Dale Bumpers(D-AR) SD-229 Dirksen 224-4843 Qentin N. Burdick(D-ND) SH-511 Hart 224-2551 Robert C. Byrd(D-WV) SH-311 Hart 224-3951 John H. Chafee(R-RI) SD-567 Dirksen 224-2921 Lawton Chiles(D-FL) SR-250 Russell 224-5274 Thad Cochran(R-MS) SR-326 Russell 224-5054 William S. Cohen(R-ME) SH-322 Hart 224-2523 Alan Cranston(D-CA) SH-112 Hart 224-3553 Alfonse D'Amato(R-NY) SH-520 Hart 224-6542 John C. Danforth(R-MO) SR-497 Russell 224-6154 Dennis DeConcini(D-AZ) SH-328 Hart 224-4521 Jeremiah A. Denton(R-AL) SH-516 Hart 224-5744 Alan J. Dixon(D-IL) SH-316 Hart 224-2854 Christopher J. Dodd(D-CT) SH-324 Hart 224-2823 Robert Dole(R-KS) SH-141 Hart 224-6521 Pete V. Domenici(R-NM) SD-434 Dirksen 224-6621 David Durenberger(R-MN) SR-154 Russell 224-3244 Thomas F. Eagleton(D-MO) SD-197 Dirksen 224-5721 Daniel J. Evens(R-WA) SH-702 Hart 224-3441 J. James Exon(D-NB) SH-330 Hart 224-4224 Wendall H. Ford(D-KY) SR-173A Russell 224-4343 Jake Garn(R-UT) SD-505 Dirksen 224-5444 Barry Goldwater(R-AZ) SR-363 Russell 224-2235 Albert Gore, Jr.(D-TN) SR-393 Russell 224-4944 Slade Gorton(R-WA) SH-513 Hart 224-2621 Phil Gramm(R-TX) SR-370 Russell 224-2934 Charles E. Grassley(R-IA) SH-135 Hart 224-3744 Tom Harkin(D-IA) SH-317 Hart 224-3254 Gary Hart(D-CO) SR-237 Russell 224-5852 Orrin G. Hatch(R-UT) SR-135 Russell 224-5251 Mark O. Hatfield(R-OR) SH-711 Hart 224-3753 Paula Hawkins(R-FL) SH-313 Hart 224-3041 Chic Hecht(R-NV) SH-302 Hart 224-6244 Howell T. Heflin(D-AL) SH-728 Hart 224-4124 John Heinz(R-PA) SR-277 Russell 224-6324 Jesse Helms(R-NC) SD-403 Dirksen 224-6342 Ernest F. Hollings(D-SC) SR-125 Russell 224-6121 Daniel K. Inouye(D-HI) SH-722 Hart 224-3934 J. Bennett Johnston(D-LA) SH-136 Hart 224-5824 Nancy Landon Kassebaum(R-KS)SR-302 Russell 224-4774 Robert W. Kasten, Jr.(R-WI) SH-110 Hart 224-5323 Edward M. Kennedy(D-MA) SR-113 Russell 224-4543 John F. Kerry(D-MA) SR-362 Russell 224-2742 Frank R. Lautenberg(D-NJ) SH-717 Hart 224-4744 Paul Laxalt(R-NV) SR-323A Russell 224-3542 Patrick J. Leahy(D-VT) SR-433 Russell 224-4242 Carl Levin(D-MI) SR-459 Russell 224-6221 Russel B. Long(D-LA) SR-225 Russell 224-4623 Richard G. Lugar(R-IN) SH-306 Hart 224-4814 James A. McClure(R-ID) SD-361 Dirksen 224-2752 Mitch McConnell(R-KY) SR-120 Russell 224-2541 Charles Mathias, Jr.(R-MD) SR-387 Russell 224-4654 Spark M. Matsunaga(D-HI) SH-109 Hart 224-6361 Mack Mattingly(R-GA) SH-320 Hart 224-3643 John Melcher(D-MT) SH-730 Hart 224-2644 Howard M. Metzenbaum(D-OH) SR-140 Russell 224-3215 George J. Mitchell(D-ME) SR-176 Russell 224-5344 Daniel P. Moynihan(D-NY) SR-464 Russell 224-4451 Frank H. Murkowski(R-AK) SH-709 Hart 224-6665 Don Nickles(R-OK) SH-713 Hart 224-5754 Sam Nunn(D-GA) SD-303 Dirksen 224-3521 Bob Packwood(R-OR) SR-259 Russell 224-5244 Claiborne Pell(D-RI) SR-335 Russell 224-4642 Larry Pressler(R-SD) SR-407A Russell 224-5842 William Proxmire(D-WI) SD-530 Dirksen 224-5653 David Pryor(D-AR) SR-264 Russell 224-2353 Dan Quayle(R-IN) SH-524 Hart 224-5623 Donal W. Riegle, Jr.(D-MI) SD-105 Dirksen 224-4822 John D. Rockefeller(D-WV) SD-241 Dirksen 224-6472 William V. Roth, Jr.(R-DE) SH-104 Hart 224-2441 Warren B. Rudman(R-NH) SH-530 Hart 224-3324 Paul S. Sarbanes(D-MD) SD-232 Dirksen 224-4524 Jim Sasser(D-TN) SR-298 Russell 224-3344 Paul Simon(D-IL) SD-462 Dirksen 224-2152 Alan K. Simpson(R-WY) SD-261 Dirksen 224-3424 Arlen Specter(R-PA) SH-331 Hart 224-4254 Robert T. Stafford(R-VT) SH-133 Hart 224-5141 John C. Stennis(D-MS) SR-205 Russell 224-6253 Ted Stevens(R-AK) SH-522 Hart 224-3004 Steven D. Symms(R-IN) SH-509 Hart 224-6142 Strom Thurmond(R-SC) SR-218 Russell 224-5972 Paul Trible(R-VA) SH-517 Hart 224-4024 Malcolm Wallop(R-WY) SR-206 Russell 224-6441 John W. Warner(R-VA) SR-421 Russell 224-2023 Lowell P. Weicker,Jr.(R-CT) SH-303 Hart 224-4041 Pete Wilson(R-CA) SH-720 Hart 224-3841 Edward Zorinsky(D-NB) SR-443 Russell 224-6551 ==================================================== The following is from an editorial by Bob Grove in the above-mentioned issue of Monitoring Times. He raises an interesting point concerning Government priorities when it comes to the 'electronic privacy' of American citizens: In spite of vigorous protests by National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 350-foot high Mount Alto in Washington, D.C., was turned over to the Soviets for their construction of an elaborate radio interception installation aimed at the White House and other prime sensitive targets in the nations's capitol. Another question of mental competence arose when high ground was given to the Soviets for a similar facility erected as a 19 story building in Riverdale (The Bronx), New York. ======================================================================= Mind you, being diplomats, the Soviets in D.C. and The Bronx are protected from persecution under diplomatic immunity. Two common integrated circuits were demonstrated before a House committee that would easily provide a very secure level of encryption. One IC cost $2.00, and the other cost $20.00. "Far too costly"? Who is the cellular phone industry trying to fool? This Act would prohibit the "interception of signals not usually accessible by the general public." To wit, the 800 MHz portion of the electromagnetic spectrum used by cellular phones (also used by channels 80 through 83 on the UHF dial). What really gets me is that the ACLU is pushing the bill because they don't want police to be able to intercept private phone calls or some such nonsense. Unless the police are really after someone, they are not going to go chasing a low-level signal around a city to prosecute someone; phone tapping is much easier. And unless cellular phone calls are encrypted, they will not be secure, period. I would never think of purchasing a cellular phone knowing this; if I am going to buy a $2,000 phone, I want a $20 chip in it that will really guarantee me a secure circuit. (I don't remember what the chips were--anyone know?) The Justice Department has already stated that it will not enforce this Act should it become law--how would they be able to? Someone would have to do something really blatant to be prosecuted. The way to secure information that the public has ready access to (and let's face it, anybody can tune a TV in to channels 80 through 83) is to encrypt it, not to tell people they can't monitor certain channels and expect them not to. I have a ten year-old HRO receiver that tunes from DC to 30 MHz; since HRO is a well-known name in amateur radio, I doubt that I am the only person with one. I have built several block converters that work quite well with this radio, extending its tuning range in to the UHF band. This is not to mention equipment from Regency. If, in turning dials, I come across a conversation on a "secure" frequency, I would be breaking the law. If any transmission is too sensitive for the general public, then it should be secured by encryption; it's cheap enough now, and building receiving equipment is just too easy. --Paul Mazzarelli pm@harvard.HARVARD.EDU Disclaimer: I have no connection with Monitoring Times. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act--It's not just a bad idea, it's about to become the Law. When radios are outlawed, only outlaws will have radios. "Gentlemen, we must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately!" --Benjamin Franklin Paul Mazzarelli pm@harvard 121 Science Center Harvard University Home: 1 Oxford Street 6 Crescent Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Somerville, MA 02145 495-1273 623-0963