Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!mdisea!jackb
From: jackb@MDI.COM (Jack Brindle)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Important Petition/Technology
Message-ID: <1991Apr12.163823.1885@MDI.COM>
Date: 12 Apr 91 16:38:23 GMT
References: <1991Apr11.034720.26091@uncecs.edu> <14144@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> <5442@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Sender: news@MDI.COM
Distribution: usa
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Lines: 49

In article <5442@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> mreid@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Melissa Reid) writes:
>I have a major reservation about Data-PCS that I have not seen
>discussed; if it results from a misunderstanding of the proposal,
>apologies.
>
>It sounds to me like you're talking about something like the
>equivalent of hooking computers together by cordless phone.
>(Yes, I know, but bear with me...)
>Have any of you heard if there has been an outcome in the debate
>about privacy issues related to cordless phones? Like, do you
>HAVE any legal right to privacy for interchanges carried out
>over cordless phone? The last I heard, the answer was NO!
>The rationale is that cordless phones BROADCAST. Listening in
>on a broadcast is, in the eyes of the legal system, different
>from tapping a wire. I have visions of people with scanners
>hooked up to computers, tracking everything sent over radio
>links between computers, the same way as people now listen in
>on other people's cordless phone calls. The thought leaves me
>less than enthused about the plan.


Come now. There is a very big difference between the ability to carry
data over radio and the readability of that data. Yes, information
that comes onto my property via radio waves is mine to hear/decode. This
means I can listen in on your phone calls, right? But, it is also your
right to encrypt that information to keep me from listening in! Why isn't
this done on telephones? Quite simply because the folks producing the
phones just haven't put it in! Instead, they argue that the laws should
be changed to make it illegal to listen in to calls. Amazingly, it's not
too difficult to add to the phones. It is just much easier to scream before
congress...

Now data is even easier to encrypt and decrypt. It is already in digital
form, ready for processing. So, sure I could evesdrop on your encrypted
data conversation, but by the time I figured out the contents of ONE packet,
your entire file has been at its destination for many weeks/months. Right
now, we don't even have the forum to attempt to push data across radio at
decent speeds (above 56K bits per second). The Apple proposal is an attempt
to gain that privilege. You also may not wish to use the service after (if)
it is established. But is it right to preclude others from doing so? (Actually,
this is a good philosophical question).

Of course, those of us involved in ham radio have been moving data at 56 KB
for four years. It is unencrypted (by law), and anyone who really wants to
listen in is welcome to. It is also quite enjoyable (and useful) to be able
to transfer data while you are completely detached from the phone company!

- Jack B.
ham radio: wa4fib/7