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