DP Tool Club 19/CD_ASCQ_19_010295.iso/vrac/tc14_375.zip/TC14-375.TXT

Text File | 1994-10-03 | 28KB | 712 lines

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 26 Sep 94 12:17:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue
375

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A.
Townson

     S. 1822: Sen. Hollings and Others' Reactions (Jeff Richards)
     Another Civil Liberty Group (Dave Banisar)
     Re: FBI Wiretap Bill -- WTF? (Eric N. Florack)
     Re: FBI Wiretap Bill -- WTF? (Michael Chui)
     Re: FBI Wiretap Bill -- WTF? (John Higdon)
     Re: FBI Wiretap Bill -- WTF? (Tom Horsley)
     Re: Wiretap Emergency (Steve Granata)
     Re: Telecommuting Law (Travis Russell)
     Re: Telecommuting Law (Bob Elliot)
     Re: Telecommuting Law (Bob Keller)
     Re: Telecommuting Law (Steve Cogorno)
     Re: Telecommuting Law (Jonathan Liu)
     Re: Telecommuting Law (Jim Burkit)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the
moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                  * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                     9457-D Niles Center Road
                      Skokie, IL USA   60076
                        Phone: [phone]
                         Fax: [phone]
   ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

**********************************************************************
*
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the
*
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland
*
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)
*
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as
represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.
*
**********************************************************************
*

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your
help
is important and appreciated.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author.
Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (special)
Subject: S. 1822: Sen. Hollings and Others' Reactions
Date: 26 Sep 1994 15:19:47 GMT
Organization: Capital Area Internet Service email [e-mail]


On September 23, 1994, Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) Chairman of the
Senate Commerce Committee announced his decision to withdraw from
further consideration S. 1822, the Telecommunications Reform Act of
1994.  In a written statement, Senator Hollings explains his reasons
for taking this action.  This has triggered a number of responses.

      An initially comprehensive set of statements by key players and
third parties is now available by gopher and WWW on bell.com. These
include:

      Senator Hollings Statement
      Senator Dole's Statement
      MFJ Task Force Reaction
      Sprint Reaction
      American Telemedicine Association Reaction
      National Association of Development Organization Reaction
      Access2000 (Independent Film & Video Producers) Reaction

Access instructions:

      ftp://bell.com/pub/Announcements_on_S.1822_Withdrawal
      gopher://bell.com
      http://bell.com

      For questions or copies via mail (e-mail or snail mail), send
request
to <[e-mail]>.


Jeff Richards   MFJ Task Force
Internet: [e-mail]
1133-21st Street, NW  # 700
Washington, DC  20036-3349

------------------------------

Organization: Electronic Privacy Information Center
From: Dave Banisar <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 02:07:10 EST
Subject: Another Civil Liberty Group Opposes Wiretap Bill


The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) today wrote to Rep.  Jack
Brooks, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, "to express the
ACLU's opposition to the FBI Wiretap Access Bill, H.R. 4922."  The
organization's position is the latest indication that the legislation
is running into serious trouble in Congress for several reasons,
including strong opposition from civil liberties and privacy
advocates.
The bill's proponents had initially hoped to bring it to a vote on the
floors of the House and Senate by mid-September.  Instead, the bill
remains in committees of both houses and is the object of a grassroots
campaign to prevent its enactment.

Excerpts from the ACLU letter:

"The principal problem remains that any digital telephone bill which
mandates that communications providers make technological changes for
the sole purpose of making their systems wiretap-ready creates a
dangerous and unprecedented presumption that government not only has
the power, subject to warrant to intercept private communications, but
that it can require private parties to create special access.  It is
as if the government had required all builders to construct new
housing with an internal surveillance camera for government use. ...

"Moreover, the FBI has not borne the burden of proving why such an
extraordinary requirement is necessary. ...

"H.R. 4922 proposes a radical and expensive change in our telecommuni-
cations structure.  The threats it poses, now and prospectively, are
real, but the need for it is far less than evident or proven.  We urge
that your Committee not rush into consideration of this far reaching
measure with so little time left in the session."

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is urging all
concerned individuals and organizations to contact the following
members of Congress immediately:

Rep. Jack Brooks                   Sen. Howard Metzenbaum
[phone] (voice)             [phone] (voice)
[phone] (fax)               [phone] (fax)

For more information about the FBI Wiretap Bill, check the Voters
Telecomm Watch (VTW) gopher site (gopher.panix.com) or send e-mail to
<[e-mail]>.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 06:34:38 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Bill -- WTF?


Pat:

You recently responded to [e-mail] (Mahatma Kane-Jeeves)
regards the FBI's position on Wiretapping the Digital network. My own
views on this subject are fairly well known to the regulars here,
having recently been posted in this list. Imagine my surprise on
reading your response. It certainly explained why my computer room
clock had stopped:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My own opinion is that the people
making
> the protests are by and large over-reacting. I've included some of
their
> press releases and 'write your congressperson' requests here in this
> Digest in an effort to be fair about it and give their side of the
story,
> but honestly, I can't see what they have gotten in such an uproar
over.<<

We seem to agree, here.

> The other day someone sent in something saying 'congressman so-and-
so
> says he has not received a single letter from citizens in opposition
to
> the bill ...', and while some of that lack of letter writing may be
due
> to the ignorance of the general public on 'how telephones work', I
do
> beleive some of it is also due to the fact that most people don't
feel
> as threatened by these things as do the denizens of EFF and various
> privacy advocates on the net. Of course a fair rebuttal to that
might be
> that it is precisely because of that general ignorance of telephone
> operations that people are not alarmed; that if the public in
general
> knew as much about telephone networks and systems as a few of us do,
> they too would be greatly concerned and busy letter writing, etc.

Frankly, Pat, I rather doubt the latter. The people are simply not as
concerned as the EFF is about such things.

> Like yourself, I find its simply too easy to tap telephones without
being
> caught at it to concern myself with some new legislation on the
subject.
> In any large older urban area, illicit tapping of telephones is
child's
> play. Just get your alligator clips and go do it at any one of a
dozen
> demarcs between the subscriber and the central office where the
cable
> pairs are multipled, or available. I am not saying I *do that*; I do
not
> do it, and I think it ethically wrong, but anyone can do it very
easily.

You certainly can right now, but I wonder about the near future. Allow
me a
question: Do you see us going end-to-end digital at any time soon?
Once that
happens, it's going to be quite a feat to tap in so simple a manner.
Hence
the need for the bill. (Among a host of other reasons.)

EFF's noisemaking is just that; much ado about nothing, and little
else
but an attempt to keep themselves in the spotlight.

(Of course, given the scorching of my mailbox the last time I
mentioned this
stand on this issue, it would seem the EFF is quite good at
marshalling it's
forces ... I fully expect more of the same, from this post.)


E


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is not politically correct to ever
criticize the EFF or the ACLU, both of whom have graced (or would you
say defaced?) these columns with their remarks from time to time. One
must never assume anything but the noblest intentions by both organiza-
tions we are told. I haven't heard much lately from another of their
kind, the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.  Never
having been, nor had any desire to be socially responsible, I used to
run their press releases from time to time more as curiosities than
anything else. Will we go end-to-end digital anytime soon in any large
scale way? Personally, I doubt it. I think we can rely on our
alligator
clips and lineman's headsets for quite awhile. But another writer
today
doesn't think so. A note from John Higdon later in this issue claims
things are changing rapidly.   PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 21:20:03 -0500
From: Michael Chui <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Bill -- WTF?
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University


PAT:

In article <[e-mail]> you write:

> Like yourself, I find its simply too easy to tap telephones without
being
> caught at it to concern myself with some new legislation on the
subject.
[snip]
> Between the many cellular/cordless phone snoops out there listening
and
> the other easy ways there are of listening to phones, why should
anyone
> care about still new proposals, government or otherwise?    PAT]

  Well, this particular proposal has some rather specific
provisions which I find troubling.  It requires common carriers to
re-engineer their networks in order to make wiretapping easy.  The
cost for this re-engineering is to be paid for by federal tax dollars.
Nobody has been able to quantify this cost (oh, great), and you
probably
would have some better idea what kind of figures are reasonable than I
would, but the $500 million FBI estimate is generally considered to be
low.
  And if the law were returned to its original form (no federal money -
-
just a mandate that common carriers re-engineer their networks for
easy wire-
tapping), ratepayers would bear the cost of redesigning the phone
network as
a ready-made surveillance system.

  As you mention, legal wiretaps have not yet been substantially
hindered by the deployment of new technology (the FBI has been unable
to substantiate their claims that it has -- they have only been able
to
count less than 200 cases, and even that number has been a shifty
target).
So why should we have to pay, either as taxpayers, or ratepayers, for
the provisions of this bill?


Michael Chui    [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So we get it either way. Uncle Sugar
says
telco has to pay; they pass it on to you, the ratepayer. Or Uncle
Sugar
says the Federal Bastion of Inquisition (FBI) has to pay; the bill
gets
sent to you, the taxpayer. They got it made.   PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 03:37:00 -0700
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Bill -- WTF?


In response to an article from [e-mail] (Mahatma Kane-
Jeeves),
the Telecom Digest Editor writes:

> Like yourself, I find its simply too easy to tap telephones without
> being caught at it to concern myself with some new legislation on
the
> subject.  In any large older urban area, illicit tapping of
telephones
> is child's play. Just get your alligator clips and go do it at any
one
> of a dozen demarcs between the subscriber and the central office
where
> the cable pairs are multipled, or available.

This is more and more becoming less and less true. In an effort to
maximize facilities and to avoid the installation of more copper,
telcos are rapidly putting customers on digital facilities. Existing
copper pairs are being graced with T1 and newly constructed facilities
are fiber cable, not copper.

Indeed, if you wanted to tap my service (and I certainly am not GE or
General Motors), you would need considerably more than a butt set and
alligator clips. You would need a T1 test set capable of drop/insert.
To do it "undetected" you would have to avoid damaging the stream
enough
to prevent the various "color" alarms. In other words, tapping such a
line would require specialized equipment at any cable distribution
point between the CO and the customer premises.

It is not unusual for a customer to have a span for POTS, another for
"internal use" connectivity between locations, and yet another from an
IXC. I know of many companies who have no analog service entry
whatsoever.

> Between the many cellular/cordless phone snoops out there listening
and
> the other easy ways there are of listening to phones, why should
anyone
> care about still new proposals, government or otherwise?    PAT]

While on its face it might seem that cellular calls are particularly
easy to intercept, the FBI is not expecially interested in listening
to random snippets of calls. It wants to monitor all calls to and from
a particular cellular telephone. This is no small matter. Monitoring
over the air is impossible, since the phone could be anywhere in the
geographic area and local cells could easily obliterate any reception
from afar. And monitoring in the MTSO is not currently feasable since
most systems are highly distributed in nature and the audio, digitized
or otherwise, does not pass reliably through any central point in the
system.

So there is some validity to the FBI's expressed concern. My fear is
that in order to accomodate and facilitate monitoring of digital
facilities we will go too far and create a CENTRALIZED monitoring
facility. After all, with the networks available now in this country,
geography is of little concern. While court orders might still be
technically necessary, if the FBI has the ability to punch in a couple
of numbers to monitor any phone in the nation, there could be an awful
lot of "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" if someone asks if a warrant was
obtained.


John Higdon  |    P.O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264
4407

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Tom Horsley)
Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Bill -- WTF?
Date: 26 Sep 1994 13:59:58 GMT
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division
Reply-To: [e-mail]


> [...Between the many cellular/cordless phone snoops out there
listening and
> the other easy ways there are of listening to phones, why should
anyone
> care about still new proposals, government or otherwise?    PAT]

Because the FBI wants to spend $500 million of your tax money to do
something you just described as trivial (and the phone industry says
it will cost even more than that). If they really only have about 1000
authorized taps in a year and you figure 10 to 20 years of use for the
current phone technology that comes to around $10000 to $20000 per tap
(not counting the cost of the people listening to the tapes, making
transcripts, etc). It seems like a fantastic amount of money to spend
on a non-problem.


[e-mail]
Home: 511 Kingbird Circle Delray Beach FL 33444
Work: Harris Computers, 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. Ft. Lauderdale FL
33309
Take the pledge! No votes for Ollie North supporters! NO POND SCUM!


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Tom, the government is very good at
spending fantastic amounts of money on non-problems. Remember a few
years
ago when some government agency spent a hundred dollars for a
screwdriver,
and how much was it -- $700.00 ?? -- for a toilet seat? And how many
times have we read or heard about 'cost overruns' in the budget of
some
Defense Department contractor? Millions and millions of dollars
squandered
and unaccounted for each time around ... non-problems are what the
govern-
ment is good at solving. The telcos are no better; they have legions
of
accounting clerks in back-offices across the land yet at any given
time
they have no earthly idea what's going on. Uncle Sugar and the telcos
are
like two peas in a pod; they are perfect for each other.   PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 10:26:54 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Wiretap Emergency

> I just spoke with Joe Barton (R) from Texas about the FBI wiretap
> bill.  He is on a subcommittee that is hearing the bill.  He has
> heard no citizen opposition to it.

[snip]

> Folks, if we can generate a few hundred calls and well-thought-out
> faxes tommorrow, we might have some effect.  I don't know a lot
about
> him, but he seemed to be of the opinion that he didn't really know
> that much about the bill.  It's up to us to educate him.

Last Tuesday I attended the House Telecommunications Subcommittee
hearing on digital telephony and wiretapping, concerning the
provisions of H.R. 4922, the bill to which the writer above referred.

Mr. Barton's House colleague and fellow Texan, Rep. Jack Fields (R-TX)
is one of the bill's cosponsors.  For the record, none of the parties
to the hearing were concerned about the wiretapping provisions of the
bill.  All subcommittee Members present spoke in favor of the
wiretapping provisions, as did panels of industry and government
witnesses, including FBI Director Freeh.

The only outstanding legislative issues concern the cost of building
equipment that is digital-wiretap-ready, and the scope of H.R. 4922,
which covers only common carriers.


Steve Granata ([e-mail])
Contract Specialist   FTS2000 Network Enhancements Branch

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Travis Russell)
Subject: Re: Telecommuting Law
Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:18:41 GMT
Organization: Tekelec, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ralph
Warren) says:

> I know that California businesses can get tax breaks if they have a
> certain percentage, but this would allow for fines to be issued to
> companies that don't.

In the city of Los Angeles, all companies with more than 50 employees
are required by law to put into place a ride sharing program for their
employees. The companies must show evidence that they have done such,
and show they have provided incentive for their employees to
participate.

Failure to comply to this law will result in fines. I have heard fines
up to $25,000 for non-compliance. Telecommuting is one of the options
that a company in Los Angeles can provide, but is not a requirement.

Many companies have gone to a 4/40 work week, which gets their
employees
on and off the freeway system outside of rush hour, or so the theory
goes. As a former LA commuter, rush hour begins at 5:30 AM and ends
around
7:00 PM at night.

I too would have welcomed telecommuting options, but part of the
problem is the lack of technology from the telephone company to make
this feasible. PacTel has recently announced plans to put fiber and
coax into place at every residence by the end of this decade, which
will greatly increase the number of telecommuters in this region. Lets
hope so anyway.


Travis Russell    [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bob Elliot)
Subject: Re: Telecommuting Law
Date: 26 Sep 1994 11:15:41 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services   [phone]


Ralph Warren ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Is the federal govt proposing a telecommuting law requiring large
> businesses in metro areas to have a certain percentage of
telecommuters?

> I know that California businesses can get tax breaks if they have a
> certain percentage, but this would allow for fines to be issued to
> companies that don't.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've not heard of any proposed law to
> fine companies which don't have telecommuters, but I do know that
this
> is being strongly urged in certain areas. They say they are meeting
> some resistance in finding workers interested in doing it  ...
personally
> I love working at home and would hate to go back to a large office
all
> day, plus the trouble of getting to and from the place.    PAT]

You've got to be joking!  At least we in Texas would fight any such
proposed law by the Federal Government.  That would interfere with the
Right to Work law in this State.  And it would interfere with my
choice of choosing to commute or telecommute.


Bob Elliott    RTNs   [e-mail]



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is not clear to me who you think is
joking ... Mr. Warren with his original comments or me in my reply. I
would
think that telecommuting would enhance Right to Work where it exists
simply
because how's the union going to get all those homeworkers signed up?
And
given the choice of driving through rush hour traffic at 5:30 in the
morning
or rolling over and going back to sleep until 8:00 AM, then making a
pot
of coffee and waddling off to your home terminal and logging in, which
would you choose?  Yes, I guess some people actually like getting
dressed
and fighting the traffic and sitting in an office full of half-witted
people all day, but it certainly is not for me.    PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 09:17:37 EDT
From: Bob Keller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecommuting Law


In TELECOM Digest V14 #371, [e-mail] (Ralph Warren) asked:

> Is the federal govt proposing a telecommuting law requiring large
> businesses in metro areas to have a certain percentage of
telecommuters?

It may be worth your time to call Mr. Steven N. Teplitz (of Fleischman
and Walsh in Washington DC) at 202-939-7921 and run this question by
him.  A former Captiol Hill staffer, he helped to found and is now
General Counsel to some sort of telecommuting trade association (I
forget its exact name) whose members tend to be large companies (e.g.,
Bell Atlantic).  He ought to know if there is any such move afoot.


Bob Keller <KY3R>  Robert J. Keller, P.C.  Tel [phone]
[e-mail]  Telecommunications Law  Fax [phone]
finger me for FCC Daily Digests and miscellaneous FCC releases

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: Telecommuting Law
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 11:11:56 GMT


I haven't heard of a federal law to this effect, but California will
be implementing a program that requires employers to pay the state (or
county agency that serves as the state's designee) for each car that
is parked at its facility.  This is to promote carpooling and
telecommuting.
I guess you could call it an "indirect" telecommuting requirement.


Steve     [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That sounds a lot like the infamous
'head
tax' the Democratic politicians put in place here in Chicago many
years
ago which is still in existence. All employers in Chicago have to pay
a
certain tax per person/month for each employee who *lives outside
Chicago*
but commutes to work. The theory is if the person actually lived here,
the politicians would be able able to tax them directly everytime the
person took a breath. Since people from outside the city don't get the
'privilege' of paying taxes that are as high as those who do live in
the
city, the politicians wanted to make it up to them somehow. :) As
large
employers began to flee the area several years ago the response by our
city fathers was 'what ingratitude!' ...  you see, its a privilege to
be able to come to Chicago to work everyday. I guess the same is true
of New York and Los Angeles. If telecommuting really catches on, watch
the local yokels figure out a way to put the squeeze on both the home
workers and the companies they work for.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jonathan)
Subject: Re: Telecommuting Law
Date: 26 Sep 1994 00:47:17 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park


I oppose a federal law which would force businesses to do this, but I
support state initiatives to reduce traffic and traffic-related
pollution, and in general I prefer the use of tax-incentives to
criminal sanctions; charging a state commuter tax on businesses would
force businesses to pay part of the costs of roads, pollution, etc.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 1994 10:47:10 GMT
From: JIM BURKIT <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecommuting Law


> Is the federal govt proposing a telecommuting law requiring large
> businesses in metro areas to have a certain percentage of
telecommuters?

I think that the federal govt has directed some or all states to
reduce auto travel (Clean Air Act) but leaves how that is done to the
states.  In NY large companies have to basically reduce the number of
cars in there parking lots.  Companies can be fined if the number of
auto trips isn't reduced by some amount (I think the number is 25
percent).  This can be done by telecommuting, reducing the number of
working days, etc.

NY only counts the last leg of the commute and therefore a company
could close a location where everyone only commutes say three miles by
car and open a location where everyone has to commute thirty miles by
train plus five miles by car to get to the train.  This would count as
an improvement of 100% even with more auto miles.  My building is
closing next year and we have to move to a location in midtown
Manhattan.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is referred to as 'games
politicians
play'.  Yes, you are correct in how the statistics would then be
calculated.
Why be straight-forward in trying to solve problems when you can
manipulate
statistics a little and make it seem like a goal has been reached.
PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #375
****************************