------------------------------ 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: patrick@SIDEWAYS.GEN.NZ(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: patrick@sideways.gen.nz bbs phone: +64 4 661231 (v21/v22/v22bis) (no fees, charges or donations reqd.) CuDs are located in: /public/telecoms/cud +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: BIFF@PHOENIX.COM(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 << ***************************************************************************