NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/comp/org/eff/talk/7059

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-11 | 2.9 KB

Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:7059 alt.privacy:2287
Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!gumby!wupost!cobra.dra.com!sean
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: this week's illegal wiretap
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Nov 92 14:48:46 CST
References: <[e-mail]> <herman.721777610@phage> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Data Ressearch Associates, Inc.
Lines: 43

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Graham Toal) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>If you are using a phone in a hotel, the hotel owner can't tap the phone
>>in your room, even though the phone is their property.
>
> Nevertheless they do.  Hotels routinely monitor all calls, and are
> tacitly encouraged to do so by the local police, especially in
> districts that are centres of drug activity.  I have this first hand
> from someone who actually did the monitoring himself in a Howard Johnson
> motel.

What do you mean by monitoring?  If you mean do they keep SMDR logs (the
digits dialed on the phone), you are correct.  And some hotels do cooperate
with police in pointing out calls dialled to certain numbers.  This falls
into the catagory of "billing information."  And it seems that most places
feel they may release that information without a court order.  Although most
public phone companies won't release the information.  And yes, we also have
a police department in St. Louis that visits every hotel and motel near the
airport in their jurisdiction to pick up copies of their records every
night (as reported in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, although they played the
story up as more racially motivated by saying they were looking for certain
catagories of "foreign" surnames).

I don't think the hotel that Phrack held their get togethers is in Florisant's
jurisdiction.

If you mean they listen to the conversations, that would be more unusual
and I can think of several newspapers that would be interested in speaking
with your friend.  Title 18 speaks of information "inadvertantly obtained
by the service provider."  It also says service providers may not "utilize
service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service
quality checks."  A hotel "routinely" monitoring calls for drug activity
may be setting themselves a mess of bad publicity and possibly civil
lawsuits.  Whether police can actually use the information I guess depends
on how far they went in encouraging the hotel in obtaining it.  I don't
know how the situation in the U.K.

Of course that would explain why hotels charge "operator-assisted" rates
even when you direct dial the call, somebody has to pay for that person
to listen :-)
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: [e-mail], Voice: (Work) [phone]