Hacker Chronicles 2 (Alt)/The_Hacker_Chronicles_Volume_II-CD2.iso/cud3/cud305b.txt

Text File | 1995-01-03 | 5.7 KB | 128 lines

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

From: Various
Subject: From the Mailbag
Date:  9 Feb, 1991

********************************************************************
***  CuD #3.05: File 2 of 8: From the Mailbag                    ***
********************************************************************

Subject: CuDs available in New Zealand
From: [e-mail](Pat Cain)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 91 01:53:55 NZD

I run a bbs in New Zealand and archive CuD -- all the issues of CuD are
here.  Plus miscellaneous other telecoms related files.  If you get any
inquiries from New Zealand people then perhaps you could direct them here?

e-mail: [e-mail]
bbs phone: [phone] (v21/v22/v22bis)
            (no fees, charges or donations reqd.)
CuDs are located in: /public/telecoms/cud

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: [e-mail](Biff)
Subject: CuD #3.04, File 3 of 4: The Politics of the ECPA of 1986
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 20:11:11 EST

Reprint from BMUG (Berkeley MacIntosh Users' Group) writes:

->A more
->emotional defense was made by John Stanton, Executive VP of McCaw
->Communications, who stated "The inhibition of the growth of cellular
->technology and paging technology, forced by the lack of privacy, is
->unfair."

The commercial use of the public airwaves by cellular communications
providers is unfair. The transmission of their signals through my body
without my permission is unfair. Life is not fair, Mr. Stanton. There is no
Constitutional guarantee of fairness, especially for corporations over
citizens.

->For example, John
->Stanton of McCaw testified that "Encryption devices make it difficult to
->roam  from system to system," generated scratchy sound, and required 30%
->more investment for the base unit, and 100% for the phone.     Mr. Colgan's
->estimated high grade commercial encryption as costing $40 for the
->encryption chip (quantity one), plus associated circuitry .  In either
->case, the net cost for several million subscribers was estimated in the
->tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars.

Before anyone starts to feel sorry for the cost involved for the cellular
folks to add encryption to the phones, consider the following facts:

    1. The cellular industry is already switching to digital mode
    because they are running out of room. This digital mode is
    encrypted (to the casual listener) and privacy of the cellular
    user is protected.

    2. The cost of the parts to add encryption to a cellular phone is
    hardly 100% of the cost of the phone. The estimates from
    non-cellular, and thus less opposed to adding the encryption
    devices, spokespeople are that encryption would add $5 to the
    cost.

    3. There is no need for "high grade" encryption. Cellular users
    need no more than simple encryption, since the only people ANY
    encryption will stop are the casual listeners. A serious privacy
    invader will tap into the trunks leading out of the cellular
    switch and bypass all the nonsense.

    4. Only poorly designed encryption systems would make it harder
    to roam. If the cellular industry can't design their systems
    properly, why should the rest of us be held to account for it?

    5. There are already several encryption systems in use by law
    enforcement agencies, and one of those could easily be used by
    cellular providers. The technology is not new.

    6. Anyone who wants you to believe that cellular manufacturers
    buy ANYTHING at single quantity prices is prevaricating through
    their orthodonture.

    7. Scratchy sound for some is better than denying to ALL the
    rights to receive signals transmitted on the public airwaves.

->John Stanton of McCaw commented  that if the U.S.
->passed the ECPA, then it would enjoy superior communications privacy to
->that available in Europe.

This was, and probably still is, the view of the cellular industry.
They feel that legislation guarantees privacy, and they are more than
happy to tell cellular users that their calls are completely private.
Instead of spending the money to MAKE the calls private, they spend the
money to make listening illegal.

->This last point deserves elaboration.  Under ECPA, monitoring of cordless
->phone frequencies is not prohibited, although it is hard to argue that the
->average individual's "expectation of privacy" is any different for a
->cordless phone than it would be for a cellular phone.

Arguing that any prudent human would believe that cordless
communications were private is beyond imagination. But even cordless
phone manufacturers are playing the game by adding "security codes",
which don't stop anyone from listening, just from dialing your phone.

->In contrast to the detailed arguments submitted by the parties discussed
->above, the one page letter submitted by The Source had a minor impact at
->best, suggesting that the ECPA, by not preempting state statutes, could
->expose the online service industry to an entangling web of federal and
->state statutes.

The tangle has started. California has, according to reports I have
seen, enacted a law prohibiting the reception of cordless phones and
baby monitors. They have preempted the FCC and the US Congress in this
matter. The IRS has ruled that IRS agents may monitor cordless phone
conversations to gather evidence of wrongdoing. A judge in an eastern
state has ruled the use of a scanner to monitor cordless phones and
identify drug dealers, by the local sheriff's department, is legal.

Sigh... Life is not fair, D00D.

********************************************************************
                           >> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************