Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!mordor!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!BRL.ARPA!rnj From: rnj@BRL.ARPA (Bobby Jesse) Newsgroups: mod.telecom Subject: Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 Message-ID: <8607230724.AA19950@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Tue, 22-Jul-86 09:48:02 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8607230724.AA19950 Posted: Tue Jul 22 09:48:02 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 24-Jul-86 02:42:46 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 95 Approved: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu To spark further interest and letter writing, I submit excerpts of a letter I sent to several parties in February 1986: Dear Senator Mathias: [....] Let me state clearly that I believe the Act in its present form is *bad* legislation. There is a need to strengthen the 1968 wire- tapping laws in some respects, but S-2575 extends "protection" beyond that which is technically reasonable or even believable. In particular, I agree that wiretapping protection should be independent of the *content* and representation of a message. That is, video, facsimile, digital, etc. signals deserve just the same protection as voice signal. The problem is that S-2575 treats the medium of transmission (radio, wire, photoelectric) just as generally as the content, and this is in fundamental conflict with the differing physical behavior of the different media. Some means of transmission are inherently point-to-point -- wire, narrowbeam microwave, and the like. Information thus sent is targeted to a particular recipient, much as first class mail is enveloped and addressed to a particular person. And those communications deserve much the same legal protection as first class mail. Most electromagnetic emissions (radio), in contrast, are inherently omnidirectional -- that is, just as physically available to many people as to the intended recipient. It is no more reasonable to make illegal the reception of [some] such broadcasts than it would be to forbid the reading of certain pages of the Washington Post. But if this argument is ignored, with the claim that it is *vital* that the public not be permitted to receive some radio broadcasts (or to read certain pages of the Post), would the resulting legislation be useful? The answer is no -- a prudent, informed businessman would no sooner discuss confidential matters on an unencrypted cellular radio- telephone call than he would publish the same material in the Post. In both cases, he knows [or should know] that the media of trans- mission are inherently available to the public, and that with or without S-2575, it would not be prudent to shout his affairs to the public. [...] the sort of protection S-2575 attempts to provide is worse than useless. It lulls those who don't understand the technology into a false sense of security, believing that their communications are not being overheard, simply because it is illegal to overhear them. No doubt this is exactly why the cellular telephone industry supports the Bill -- a pacified public will buy more cellphones and use them more freely. [....] Respectfully yours, /s/ R. Jesse ======= The Mobile Communications Division of the Electronic Industries Assoc. [EIA] distributed around Capitol Hill an excellent letter dated July 10, 1986 to the same general effect as the above, with some additional points: + "In the case of cordless telephones the FCC requires product labeling to inform the consumer that 'privacy of communications may not be ensured when using this phone.' We believe that consumer education is a more appropriate response to this issue than is the proposed legislation." + the General Counsel of the FCC told the US DoJ in April 86 "'...we propose that the Safe Streets Act not prohibit interception of the radio portion of telephone communications where the interception is neither divulged nor used for the benefit of the interceptor or another not entitled thereto.'" + "There is also Congressional precedent acknowledging the concept of encryption. When Congress adopted Section 705 of the Communications Act in 1984, it exempted from penalty the interception of satellite cable programming by individuals for private viewing if 'the programming involved is not encrypted.'" ======= Readers of Telecom might think that there would be widespread opposition to this bill. Not so! The ease (unanimous voice vote?) and silence with which it passed the House is evidence. The EIA appears to be the first major voice to rise against it generally. [I understand that the Amateur Radio Relay League was objecting in the early stages, but was placated by additional language excluding ham bands, and has been more or less quiet since.] In contrast, the support for the Bill is vocal and very well organized. And the weight of the booboisie is behind it with the simplistic notion that "decent people don't listen in on other people's phone calls. let's make it illegal." And we can guess that if the bill becomes law, we'll hear no objection from the Supreme Court.