Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!bogstad From: bogstad@brl-smoke.ARPA (William Bogstad ) Newsgroups: net.mail Subject: Re: Congress is now debating the future of Usenet Message-ID: <3230@brl-smoke.ARPA> Date: Fri, 22-Aug-86 02:53:56 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-smok.3230 Posted: Fri Aug 22 02:53:56 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Aug-86 20:57:08 EDT References: <1632@well.UUCP> <1013@hoptoad.uucp> <1170@utastro.UUCP> <1022@hoptoad.uucp> <189@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> Reply-To: bogstad@brl.arpa (William Bogstad (JHU|mike) ) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 99 [Note: All of my comments are based on S.2575 dated June 19 (legislative day 16), 1986. I do not yet have the newest version of the bill. My statements are based on my understanding of the bill. I do not have any legal training and would welcome corrections (if any are needed) from those with more accurate information.] Well, first some general information. If you have gotten a copy of bill S.2575 you may want to compare it to the previous law. This can be found in the U.S. Code Title 18. Most large public libraries probably have a bound copy of the entire U.S. Code. (about 20? volumes) The last complete edition I know of was 1982. The last supplement (III) is from Jan. 20, 1986. I had to copy a total of 12 pages to get the whole thing. It dealt with "wire", "oral", and telegraph-like communications. Wire and oral communications are essentially phone and face-to-face conversations. In article <189@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> dudek@harvard.UUCP (Glen Dudek) writes: > >I am not a lawyer, but after wading through the pertinent sections of >S.2575 ... I am not overly concerned. It seems to be >primarily concerned with protecting the privacy of electronic messages, >and establishing the guidelines under which such electronic messages >can be divulged or obtained by legal investigation. Yes, it does finally address the subject of electronic messages. However, the bill changes some things for other forms of communication. In particular, it explicitly excludes cordless telephone conversations from protection. See the change in definition of "wire communication" in Sec. 101. (a) (1) (D) (of S.2575) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: "or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce, but such term does not include the radio portion of a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit". I think this is a very bad inconsistency. In particular, because other radio transmitted telephone conversations are protected - (cellular and older mobile phones). The claim is that it is too easy to tap cordless telephone conversations. Well, this is true, but from conversations with people who I believe to be knowledgeable in that area, I believe it is just as easy to tap these other forms. In my opinion, a better law would be to protect scrambled/encrypted conversations on the radio waves and leave unprotected messages legally unprotected. This might encourage the vendors to provide systems with real security and would put the law more in step with the protection you can expect to actually have if someone tries to break the law anyway. This would also avoid the problem with accidently picking up a conversation, i.e. tuning your amateur radio across the bands and happen to cross the frequencies used for phone transmissions. I believe this accidental reception would be illegal. With an encrypted signal, this problem is avoided. One other thing of interest is the fact that the penalties for listening to cellular conversations are lower then for other transmission media. It makes you kind of wonder if the penalties were based on the cost of the equipment involved. (cordless < cellular < mobile) >This is the >primary section on privacy and disclosure: > > "(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) of this > paragraph, a person or entity providing an electronic communication > service to the public shall not willfully divulge the contents of any > communication (other than one to such person or entity, or an agent > thereof) while in transmission on that service to any person or entity > other than an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or > an agent of such addressee or intended recipient. > > "(B) A person or entity providing electronic communication > service to the public may divulge the contents of any such > communication-- > > "(iii) to a person employed or authorized, or whose > facilities are used, to forward such communication to its destination; > or Note: This makes it legal to read the messages in your mail spool directory if you administer the system. > > "(iv) which were inadvertently obtained by the service > provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if > such divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.". Why this exception? Yes, we all want to stop crime, but I can't find a similar statement for phone conversations. There are mentions of service personnel monitoring transmission for quality control, but I don't think this allows them to divulge the contents of those conversations without a court order. Why can't e-mail get the same legal protection. That's it for now, but I haven't finished going through the bill yet. I'm also interested in the amendments to the bill which were made suddenly (and apparently without discussion). Bill Bogstad bogstad@hopkins-eecs-bravo.arpa bogstad@brl-smoke.arpa