BBS in a Box 2

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ BBS in a Box 2 / BBS in a box - Trilogy II.iso / Files / MUG News / EFF / EFFector Online v2n8.txt < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1992-04-24 | 17.1 KB | 343 lines | [TEXT/MSWD]

############ ########## Volume 2 Number 8 ############ ########## April 17, 1992 #### ### ### ########## ########## ########## ### ### #### #### ########## ########## ########## ### ### ##### #### ########## #### #### ### ### ###### #### #### ######## ######## ### ### ############ #### ######## ######## ### ### #### ####### ############# #### #### ########## #### ###### ############# #### #### ########## #### ##### ############# #### #### ########## #### #### ## ## ## |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| EFFector | | ONline | DIGITAL TELEPHONY | | The FBI/DOJ Initiative: | eff@eff.org | An EFF Editorial | | | 155 Second Street | ISDN YOU CAN AFFORD | Cambridge, MA 02141 | A Report from the EFF/ISDN Lab | (617) 864-0665 | | | | 666 Pennsylvania Ave.SE | | Washington, DC 20003 | | (202) 544-9237 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ REACH OUT AND TAP SOMEONE? An Editorial By Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org) You can imagine how difficult the invention of the telephone made law enforcement in the late 19th and early 20th century. Prior to the spread of telephone networks, criminals had to meet *in person* to conspire. If known criminals could be seen meeting at known criminal hangouts, law-enforcement agents would often be tipped off that something was up. Once the telephone became widespread, however, it became possible for criminals to plan crimes without being in the same place--without even being in the same town! The advent of telecommunications had made detecting and deterring crime a bit harder. Because of this we might understand, if not entirely sympathize with, a law-enforcement agent in 1900 who believed that telephones should be banned altogether. By the same token, we can understand the motivations of FBI Director William Sessions, who, along with the Department of Justice, wants to see a law passed that would prevent advances in telecommunications technology from making wiretaps more difficult. But that doesn't mean we should be sympathetic to the FBI/DOJ initiative, which would shift the burden of making wiretaps feasible from the government to the phone companies (and to other electronic communications providers such as CompuServe, Prodigy, and small BBSs). Considered as a whole, this initiative is based on false technological premises and questionable philosophical ones. The initiative,called "Digital Telephony," would "require providers of electronic communications services and private branch exchanges to ensure that the Government's ability to lawfully intercept communications is unimpeded by the introduction of advanced digital telecommunications technology or any other telecommunications technology." The initiative would also require that changes or additions in communications software or hardware be paid for through increased rates to consumers. All changes and additions to the nation's telecommunications system done under the initiative would be administered by the Federal Communications Commission (in cooperation with the U.S. Attorney General). The initiative also provides that, if requested by the Attorney General, "any Commission proceeding concerning regulations, standards or registrations issued or to be issued under authority of this section shall be closed to the public." In effect, the FCC would compel and supervise the incorporation of wiretapping software and hardware into the upgraded digital telephone system. And, if the Attorney General wished it, this action could take place without public review. On the technology side, telephone experts question the Justice Department's assertion that "the emergence of digital telecommunications technology will preclude the FBI and all of law enforcement from being able to intercept electronic communications[,] thus all but eliminating a statutorily sanctioned, court authorized and extraordinarily successful investigative technique." Few of these experts believe that digital telephony itself poses the risk of making wiretapping wholly impossible; at most, say some experts, wiretapping of digital lines may be more difficult. And it should be noted that digital telephone service is already in place at many sites, yet Director Sessions told Congress just this year that there has not been a single case in which the FBI has been unable to implement a wiretap. If wiretapping is not about to become obsolete, why are the FBI and the Justice Department eager to impose upon communications providers the obligation to build in wiretapping capability? One possible explanation lies in last year's effort by the Department of Justice (in S. 266) to expand government authority to compel phone-companies to "ensure that communications systems permit the government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other communications when appropriately authorized by law." On its face, this language would have outlawed the phone companies' carrying of encrypted communications if the government could not decrypt those communications into their "plain text contents." Far more than digital telephone service itself, encryption poses the risk of making the interception and reading of electronic communications immensely difficult if not impossible. Talk to law enforcement personnel who've considered the problem, and they'll tell you they're worried about the increasing use of commercial encryption, since it would give criminals the potential to make their communications, even when intercepted, impossible to read. But for the same reason, noncriminal uses of encryption are also growing--businesses and individuals have valid reasons for wanting to keep their communications private. That's why a coalition of industry and civil-liberties groups opposed S. 266 last year and managed to get it killed. That coalition might have had a harder time, however, if the FBI and the Justice Department had already passed their Digital Telephony initiative. If this initiative had already been in place, the government could have urged lawmakers to outlaw encryption in order to *protect the phone companies' investment in built-in wiretapping capability*. "You've already required the phone companies to build in wiretapping," the FBI could tell Congress. "All we're asking now is that you ensure that the intercepted communications are readable." This hypothetical case underscores the philosophical problems civil libertarians have with the Digital Telephony initiative. Historically, when advances in communications technology have raised problems for law enforcement, the government has coped with those problems by developing advances in its own investigatory techniques. For example, when telephone systems made it hard to monitor suspects' plans and activities, the government didn't outlaw telephones--it learned how to implement wiretaps. Until now, U.S. law-enforcement agencies normally have responded to new problems in detecting criminal communications by developing innovative investigative tools. And that's what they should be doing in response to whatever new problems are posed by digital telephony and encryption. This is why EFF is coordinating a coalition of privacy and civil-liberties groups and computer, communications, and telephone companies -- a coalition ranging from Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and the ACLU to IBM and U.S. West -- that opposes this initiative. In a free society, we believe, the government has no business compelling the phone companies to turn our communications networks into surveillance systems. -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- THE SWITCHED CIRCUIT Number 1: Reasonable ISDN Rates Available In Massachusetts A Report from the EFF's ISDN Lab By Christopher Davis <ckd@eff.org> and Helen Rose <hrose@eff.org> This is the first in a series of reports from the EFF's new ISDN Lab, where we'll be working with the ISDN offerings from New England Telephone, along with as many different kinds of ISDN hardware as we can get our hands on. We recently attended a seminar on ISDN given by New England Telephone for the benefit of telecommunications consultants. Though they focused primarily on the business aspects of ISDN (no surprise there) they also said they were pricing the service for residential lines, "regular" single-line business service, and INTELLIPATH Centrex. The apparent market focus for offering the residential service is the work-at-home or "telecommuting" population, but the residential service is not crippled in any way. The prices for ISDN services are encouraging. First and foremost, they are affordable. This is *not* the gold-plated offering we've seen from some of the regional Bells. (Note that these only apply to Massachusetts.) Installation charges for ISDN Basic Rate Interface (BRI) which supplies 2 B channels plus a D channel for call setup and/or low-speed X.25 packet data) are low (regular installation charges, plus $15 for each circuit- switched voice, data, or voice/data B channel) and monthly rates are only $8 over the regular rates for that class of service, plus $5 for data or voice/data B channels. (Packet switched connections at either high or low speed are more expensive, however.) One very nice feature is that NET is not charging the usual monthly surcharge ($2+) for tone service; this makes the price of an ISDN line actually *cheaper* than the two voice lines many people have in order to make data calls while leaving their "normal" line free. Though you can't order two of the same type of B channel, the voice/data channel can be used for either voice or data on a per call basis.This allows you to order a voice channel and a voice/data channel to get, in effect, two voice lines while also having the ability to do circuit-switched data. Voice calls are charged at the usual rate, so if you have unmeasured voice service, you're not going to be stuck with measured ISDN voice service. Circuit-switched data calls (64kbps) are charged at measured rates (until September 25, at business measured rates--currently $.0963 for the first minute and .016 for each additional minute; after September 25, residential customers will pay $.026 for the first minute), but are only available (currently) within the same central office. NET plans to make interoffice connections available starting 4th quarter 1992. The ability to do long-distance ISDN will have to wait for National ISDN-1, which probably won't happen until 1993 or later. It may be possible to do 56kbps data over an ISDN "voice" connection, since the voice connection is merely a bit-robbed digital end-to-end connection. This is one of the first things we'll test; if true, it will make an already affordable ISDN tariff even more so. As part of the ISDN Lab, we'll be trying ISDN between our home and EFF's Cambridge office, allowing us to test both the residential and business offerings, and everything from straight 56/64kbps "fast modem" style connections to AppleTalk and IP over ISDN. As part of this effort, we will be working with several computer and telecommunications hardware providers to try out various ISDN terminal adapters, routing software, and the like. If you have questions about ISDN, or suggestions for the ISDN Lab, send electronic mail to isdnlab@eff.org. -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION OFFERS T-SHIRTS For a $10 donation, EFF will send you a spiffy 100% cotton white T-shirt with the new black and red EFF logo tastefully displayed on front, and the following on the back: ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION eff@eff.org (50's style graphic with large building sitting on world) Serving Cyberspace since 1990 They come in sizes XL and child's S only. Send your $10 check or money order to The Electronic Frontier Foundation ATT: Rita/ T-Shirts 155 Second Street Cambridge MA 02141 "What a DEAL! People will be hard-pressed to find a shirt of the same quality with such fantastic silk-screening for less than $20 in any T-shirt store in the country. (You can quote me on that.)" -- Brendan Kehoe <brendan@cs.widener.edu> upon receiving his shirt. *** Mention that you are an EFFector Online reader, and we will *** waive all shipping and handling charges! -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION In order to continue the work already begun and to expand our efforts and activities into other realms of the electronic frontier, we need the financial support of individuals and organizations. If you support our goals and our work, you can show that support by becoming a member now. Members receive our quarterly newsletter, EFFECTOR, our bi-weekly electronic newsletter, EFFector Online (if you have an electronic address that can be reached through the Net), and special releases and other notices on our activities. But because we believe that support should be freely given, you can receive these things even if you do not elect to become a member. Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible. Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students, $40.00 per year for regular members. You may, of course, donate more if you wish. Our privacy policy: The Electronic Frontier Foundation will never, under any circumstances, sell any part of its membership list. We will, from time to time, share this list with other non-profit organizations whose work we determine to be in line with our goals. But with us, member privacy is the default. This means that you must actively grant us permission to share your name with other groups. If you do not grant explicit permission, we assume that you do not wish your membership disclosed to any group for any reason. ---------------- EFF MEMBERSHIP FORM --------------- Mail to: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc. 155 Second St. #28 Cambridge, MA 02141 I wish to become a member of the EFF I enclose:$__________ $20.00 (student or low income membership) $40.00 (regular membership) $100.00(Corporate or company membership. This allows any organization to become a member of EFF. It allows such an organization, if it wishes to designate up to five individuals within the organization as members.) [ ] I enclose an additional donation of $___________ Name:______________________________________________________ Organization:______________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________ City or Town: _____________________________________________ State:_______ Zip:________ Phone:( )_____________(optional) FAX:( )____________________(optional) Email address: ______________________________ I enclose a check [ ] . Please charge my membership in the amount of $_____________ to my Mastercard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ] Number:____________________________________________________ Expiration date: ____________ Signature: ________________________________________________ Date:______________________ I hereby grant permission to the EFF to share my name with other non-profit groups from time to time as it deems appropriate [ ] . Initials:___________________________ -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- Seen in InformationLeak: "We did Windows applications, but we didn't inhale." -- Borland CEO Phillipe Kahn, discussing his firm's support for OS/2 2.0 ===================================================================== EFFector Online is published by The Electronic Frontier Foundation 155 Second Street, Cambridge MA 02141 Phone:(617)864-0665 FAX:(617)864-0866 Internet Address: eff@eff.org Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors for their express permission. =====================================================================