Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site petrus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!bellcore!petrus!karn
From: karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio
Subject: Re: Eavesdropping revisited [How's that again?]
Message-ID: <657@petrus.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 27-Oct-85 14:58:15 EST
Article-I.D.: petrus.657
Posted: Sun Oct 27 14:58:15 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 28-Oct-85 04:19:30 EST
References: <154@pyuxv.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Lines: 28

> Congress has a measure under consideration that would
> strengthen such privacy law requirements extending protection to
> cellular and cordless telephones.

I see this as a very unfortunate development. Once again, the lawyer types
think they can simply wish away a problem with an unenforceable law.  Has
anybody told them that cordless telephones can be intercepted with any cheap
AM radio? Or that under the proper circumstances cellular phone
conversations can be overheard with an ordinary UHF TV set?

Naturally, one major effect of such a law would be to hassle us hams. No
doubt there'd be an effort to ban the sale of general coverage receivers
(either of the traditional HF type or the new VHF/UHF types like the Yaesu
FRG-9600 or the Icom R-7000). Bad guys still intent on monitoring cellular
phone would still be able to build their own receive converters with little
trouble, and unless we repeal the 4th amendment and allow arbitrary
police-state searches of private residences for listening gear, the law
won't stop them.  Worse, the mere existence of the law will give the users
of cordless and cellular phones a false sense of privacy, and nothing is
more dangerous when dealing with communications security.

The cellular radio operators should be required to inform their customers
that their conversations can be overheard (as cordless phone users already
are). Customers should be made to understand that they are responsible for
their own communications security and encouraged to obtain voice scrambling
devices should they wish greater privacy.  I see no practical alternative.

Phil