Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!ames!think!barmar
From: barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Computer Virus Hearings
Message-ID: <21465@news.Think.COM>
Date: 2 Jun 89 17:18:36 GMT
References: <154@oldcolo.UUCP> <4246@ficc.uu.net> <513@atlas.tegra.UUCP> <729@corpane.UUCP>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Reply-To: barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 59

In article <729@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
Re: Electronic Communication Privacy Act
>So why aren't cordless phones included? eh? It's the same situation on a
>different frequency and a shorter range. 

I think the shorter range has a lot to do with it.  Someone can't just
set up a single receiver and start tapping into the cordless phone
conversations of everyone in town.

Were cordless phones even discussed when drafting the law?  If not,
then it seems to me that the reason they aren't included is that no
one thought to bring the issue up, rather than that the lawmakers
specifically wanted to allow cordless phone eavesdropping.

>Personally I think if they don't want people listening in on phones they should
>scramble the signal so you can't listen in. The burden should be on the phone
>manufacturers and the phone company, not the public. If the radio waves come
>into my house uninvited and unscrambled then I should have the right to listen
>to them. Laws shouldn't be passed to make listening illegal. That's working
>from the wrong end. It takes away from our freedom. 

Just because you CAN listen, doesn't mean that you have the right to
listen.  If I leave my door unlocked that doesn't give you the right
to walk in uninvited.  I'm not required to put a lock on my mailbox,
yet it is still illegal for someone to look at my mail.  And the phone
company isn't required to scramble their signals (some of which go
through microwave links, i.e.  through the "public" air), yet it is
illegal to put on a wire tap.

The business of laws is to tell people that certain things that they
are capable of doing are not considered right.  Intentionally
listening in on phone conversations is considered wrong, so why should
it be the burden of the users to scramble their data.

Also, even if the data is scrambled, it's possible for eavesdroppers
to get descramblers.  I hope you don't think it should be legal for
them to listen and descramble.

>It just lulls them into thinking that just
>because it's illegal to listen in that no one will do it.

Come on, give people the benefit of some intelligence.  Everyone knows
it's illegal to steal, but we all know that theft occurs.  But we also
know that if we catch someone doing it, we can send them to jail.

>But what they really end up doing is
>limiting our freedoms. 

I agree that it is a good idea for cellular phone companies to
scramble their signals.  But I don't think anyone has a RIGHT to
listen to my phone conversation, scrambled or otherwise.  Therefore, I
don't think phone companies should be REQUIRED to scramble their
signals.

Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar