Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 16:39:00 EST
Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler <comp-privacy-request@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#067
Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 28 Jul 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 067
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: cellnet privacy?
Re: SSN & TV rental
Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#066
cellnet privacy?
cellnet privacy?
Re: Phone Tap in Murder Case Ruled Illegal
800 MHz receivers (was Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#065)
The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the
effect of technology on privacy. The digest is moderated and
gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy
(Moderated). Submissions should be sent to
comp-privacy@pica.army.mil and administrative requests to
comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.pica.army.mil
[129.139.160.200].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Life..." <gberigan@cse.unl.edu>
Subject: Re: cellnet privacy?
Organization: Ursa Minor Beta, 402-476-8047 @ 2400
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:01:50 GMT
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:
>Here in the US, rather than deal with this
>by adding encrypted transmission options, the cellular phone industry
>got together and convinced Congress to make monitoring cellular
>calls *illegal*. Even if you *don't* tell anyone.
>
>This is *especially* silly when you realize that here, the cellular
>phone system uses what used to be part of the UHF TV band. *Lots*
>of old TV sets (especially *small* portables with analog tuning)
>can listen in.
I can tune into a celluar pager system with my TV, and I have CABLE!
Noise goes right on top of VH-1, messing up the picture. (Funny thing
is, VH-1 isn't always on that channel -- most of the time they have
CNBC, a business channel!)
It's an auto-tune TV, but not so smart that it'll switch off sound or
picture if it doesn't get a clean signal. I discovered it by accident
by switching channels that that was the cause. The cableco think they
can't fix it, so they won't.
I mentioned this on the net before, and one person suggested I ask them
if they are getting interference, then it is quite possible that they
have a signal leaking somewhere along the line, which is an FCC
violation, and that perhaps might get them to fix it.
>Leonard Erickson leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
>CIS: [70465,203] 70465.203@compuserve.com
>FIDO: 1:105/56 Leonard.Erickson@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org
So it's illegal to intercept a message. Is it illegal to provide
someone with the means to intercept the messages? And charging for that
means?
-- gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)
/// ____ \\\ "Sorry, did I say something wrong? Pardon me for
| |/ / \ \| | breathing, which I never do anyway so I don't even
\\_|\____/|_// know why I bother to say it oh God I'm so depressed.
\_)\\/ Here's another one of those self-satisfied doors.
`-' Life... don't talk to me about life...."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 16:42:25 PDT
From: Mark Bell <idela!bell@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: SSN & TV rental
SSN's march on. I wanted to rent a TV for the two weeks of the Olympics
(not owning one myself). So they wanted the driver's license and SSN along
with the names of six friends. They said this was so they could find the
TV if a renter skipped. The two places I called, for some reason, both
volunteered that they didn't do a credit check, only that they'd verify
the friends.
Well, I could see the sense of that but naturally I couldn't give my SSN.
(Really, now, would I be on this list if I were willing to do that?)
So I said that I certainly could understand their need to protect their
property, could I speak to the manager?
I then offered to put the entire value of the TV down as a cash deposit.
Not a credit card chit -- actual hundred dollar bills. Shucks, I'd make
the deposit be LIST price, not the street price! All in the legitimate
effort to respect their security interest in the TV.
No dice. So I asked if anyone had ever approached them this way, wanting
to bypass the checking procedure with a 100% cash deposit? (You know the
answer...) No, no one ever had. No one ever had a problem with giving
the SSN.
Yup. I have no doubt they're right. I even explained that I was trying
to be ethical rather than, say, "buying" a TV from a store with a liberal
return policy and bringing it back in two weeks. Oh well. (I wound up
bowworing one from a friend. All upper-middle class households have a
few extra anyway.)
It probably isn't worth the trouble, but does anyone know if there is a
way around this in California?
Regards,
Mark Bell Los Angeles "All opinions my own, not speaking for anyone else."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 16:29:40 PDT
From: Mark Bell <idela!bell@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#066
>From: "Willis H. Ware" <willis@iris.rand.org>
>RE cellular phones and interception thereof
>Moreover, I believe I'm correct in saying that it is also illegal to
>market a product [e.g., scanner] that can intercept the cellular
>frequencies. That reduces the number of people who can do it, if one
>choses to ignore the law, from our 250M population to the subset of 25-40M
>who are electronically astute enough of doing it on their own with parts
>from radio shops. I guess that's what's called risk reduction!
Cellular phone scanners: Are they illegal? I don't believe so. One
can buy a nice Bearcat scanner from DAK in Canoga Park , California,
for a little over $200. They put a message in the box that it is
"ILLEGAL to use the scanner over the range of 845-860 MhZ according
to Congressional law..." (I'm probably off a little on the range.)
And they even mention in their advertisement, (paraphrase): "When
I turned the scanner on, I heard voices discussing some business
arrngements. I quickly switched away when I realized that I had
overheard a call girl ring on the cellular frequencies!" So they
say right in the ad that you're not 'sposed to do that.
They have an 800 number for ordering.
>choses to ignore the law, from our 250M population to the subset of 25-40M
>who are electronically astute enough of doing it on their own with parts
>from radio shops.
That estimate sounds high. I'd say it's more like one in fifty, for a total
of 5 million. For that five million, there is a book helpfully titled,
"Scanner Modification Handbook" that steps 'em through it. Even covers
those handheld units. Available at ham-radio type stores, survivalist
bookstores, that sort of place. 1st amendment seems to cover the book OK.
Mark Bell
Los Angeles bell@ide.com "Opinions my own & not my employers..."
------------------------------
From: keith.willis@almac.co.uk
Subject: cellnet privacy?
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:41:02 GMT
Organization: ALMAC PC Board
LE> Are you sitting down? Here in the US, rather than deal with this
LE> by adding encrypted transmission options, the cellular phone industry
LE> got together and convinced Congress to make monitoring cellular
LE> calls *illegal*. Even if you *don't* tell anyone.
Wow! The ability of any given legislature to go out of its
way to demonstrate that the law is in fact an ass, never
ceases to amaze me! How can it _possibly_ be illegal to
_receive_ the transmissions?! As you say, the only sensible
course would have been to incorporate some form of on-the-fly
scrambling or encryption.
I must make the effort to find out how the law stands on this
over here...
---
~ PQ 2.15 194 ~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**** Keith Willis
**** email: keith.willis@almac.co.uk
**** bangpath: ...mcsun!uknet!almac!keith.willis
------------------------------
From: keith.willis@almac.co.uk
Subject: cellnet privacy?
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:41:02 GMT
Organization: ALMAC PC Board
GE> > I wonder how long it is going to be before the business
GE> > Cellphone users realise that all their conversations made
GE> > over the Cellnet are easily intercepted, in 'cleartext',
GE> > with a cheap shortwave scanner? I managed, completely
GE> What is "cleartext" and at what frequencies do they broadcast conversations.
GE> This is very disconcerning to me as I am an owner of a Cellularphone.
GE> Is there anyway to scamble conversations so they are not as public.
What I meant by 'cleartext' is 'unscrambled'. In other
words, your conversations are bouncing around in the ether
available to be picked up by anyone with a cheap (around
150) shortwave scanner. The frequencies involved are
between 860MHz and 940MHz in the UK.
As for ways of scrambling your conversations in order to
render them private, the short answer is 'no'. It may be
possible to modify a given pair of phones to transmit and
receive scrambled signals, but ways of doing this are probably
outside the scope of this conference (and of my limited
knowledge of electronics!)
---
~ PQ 2.15 194 ~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**** Keith Willis
**** email: keith.willis@almac.co.uk
**** bangpath: ...mcsun!uknet!almac!keith.willis
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 8:47 GMT
From: jeremy <CRAMPTONJ@csovax.portsmouth.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Phone Tap in Murder Case Ruled Illegal
>From: Graham Toal <gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl>
>Subject: Re: Phone Tap in Murder Case Ruled Illegal
>Date: 25 Jul 92 16:35:39 GMT
>Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl
>Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands
>
>
>In article <comp-privacy1.63.3@pica.army.mil> MPA15AB!RANDY@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com writes:
>>[I can understand it being illegal to tap one's own phone, and also
>>that evidence received through government (police) misconduct should
>>be suppressed. It also makes sense to me that if you illegally tap
>>your phone, you shouldn't be able to profit from it, such as by using
>>the tapes in a civil suit. But if the government had no hand in
>>making the tape (didn't put you up to it, etc.), then the tape should
>>be usable in a criminal case. -- RCG]
[...]
>The question relevant to this thread is would evidence gleaned by
>a hotel employee hold up in court?
[...]
>This guy I met told me he was a senior employee of Howard Johnsons -
>not a manager, but a worker. He said that he and his staff regularly
>listened in on guest's telephone calls, and that they had a way of
>monitoring all calls at once. He reckoned his hotel was often used
>by drug dealers, and that several well publicised drug busts had
>come through info he and his staff had passed on to police.
>
>He gave the impression that his hotel was no exception - that police
>forces in many places use hotel staff to monitor hotel phones for
>them and report anything suspicious. It isn't an organised operation
>I should add - they don't do this *all* the time - just (it sounded
>to me) when they're bored.
>
>Still, it's chilling to think that when you use a hotel phone you're
>more likely to be monitored than not. And the thought that H-J's
>phone system has special features to allow all lines to be ganged
>together for simultaneous listening, followed by a way of scanning
>through them to find a particular call amongst the 'cocktail party
>effect', is a bit worrying...
Here is some news on this issue from the UK. Contrary to the US position
(stated above) that tapping your own phone is illegal, (and that you can't
profit from it) there has been a recent incident over here which would
suggest that in the UK it is still legal (warning: I'm not a lawyer, but I
saw one on TV once..)
The girlfriend of a senior minister in the government was staying in a flat
where she talked on the phone with said minister (David Mellor). Unknown
to either of them, she was renting the flat from a guy who was working in
conjunction with a tabloid newspaper which wanted to get some info on the
rumored affiar. He bugged his flat (though he was not living there; this
girlfriend was) with a listening device hidden behind a picture frame (shades
of 007) and, more relevant to us, he ran a second phone off the main one out
the back and into a back patio, where a journalist from the tabloid had a
novelty no-ring phone (a jaguar car which flashed its lights when a call
came in). Said journo then recorded the conversation between Mellor and lover.
In effect, and this may be his argument, he was only running an
extension of his own phone. Nevertheless, he profited from it, in that he sold
the story to the press etc. (For details, see _Sunday Times_, July 26, 1992).
It seems to me that this should still be illegal, given that he was renting out
his flat to someone else, and that he showed intent to surveil by hiding a bug
in a picture frame.
What do my American colleagues think of this? How much have you heard about
this affair? Would this behavior stand up in court in the US?
I should add that one other worrying thing for freedom and
democracy in the UK is that the first reaction was, oh, we've got to muzzle
the press from printing these stories, let's have some 'privacy' laws (ie
more government secrecy laws).
__
jeremy.. cramptonj@csovax.portsmouth.ac.uk [internet]
or.. cramptonj@uk.ac.portsmouth.csovax [janet]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 11:14:50 -0700
From: "David W. Barts" <davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu>
Subject: 800 MHz receivers (was Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#065)
In article <comp-privacy1.66.4@pica.army.mil>, willis@iris.rand.org (Willis H. Ware) writes:
:Moreover, I believe I'm correct in saying that it is also illegal to
:market a product [e.g., scanner] that can intercept the cellular
:frequencies. That reduces the number of people who can do it, if one
:choses to ignore the law, from our 250M population to the subset of 25-40M
:who are electronically astute enough of doing it on their own with parts
:from radio shops. I guess that's what's called risk reduction?
I don't think so. Check in any ham radio or radio monitoring magazine
and you'll find a number of mail order firms advertising receivers
which can pick up cellular calls with no modifications. The ads always
measure the frequency range of the receiver.
Or perhaps you meant to say that it's illegal to market these devices
_as tools for intercepting cellular calls_ (in which case it is still
legal to market them for other purposes). This may very well be
illegal; I've never seen these radios advertised as "cellular telephone
receivers", onlu as UHF receivers that can tune to a specific range of
frequencies.
Anyhow, I bought my Yeasu FRG-9600 well after ECPA was passed, from a
well-known US mail order firm, and it was (and still is) capable of
intercepting cellular calls from the moment I unpacked it.
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #067
******************************