Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private
Message-ID: <2753@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 10 Jan 90 07:08:46 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 53
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 18, message 2 of 8

The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling that conversations on
cordless phones are not private. 
   
Justices turned down an appeal by Scott Tyler, of Dixon, Iowa, whose
conversations on a cordless phone were overheard by neighbors who
called police when they suspected he had broken the law.
  
Tyler was convicted in 1984 of criminal conspiracy and theft in
connection with business arrangements that had been discussed over his
cordless phone. He then sued his neighbors and the police, contending
the eavesdropping was an unconstitutional invasion of his privacy. 
   
A federal judge in Davenport, Iowa threw out the suit, saying users of
cordless phones should know that the technology used in their phones
makes it possible to overhear a conversation without a wiretap. As
readers of the Digest know, cordless phones use low-power radio
signals in the 46-49 megahertz range that broadcast conversations a
short distance and can be intercepted by other cordless phones,
scanners and some other types of radio equipment.

"Because there was no justifiable expectation of privacy, the
interceptions did not violate the Fourth Amendment," the judge decided.
An appellate court agreed and rejected Tyler's appeal.

In the appeal to the Supreme Court, Tyler's attornies acknowledged
that conversations on cordless phones are more susceptible to casual
interception than traditional phone calls. But, they argued, that
"does not justify ignoring the Fourth Amendment entirely any more than
crossed wires in a phone exchange short-circuit all Fourth Amendment
safeguards."

The justices did not explain their decision, which was announced by an
unsigned order. Nonetheless, the action can be used as precedent in
other similar cases which may and have arisen elsewhere.

Stephen Shapiro, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union
who argued the matter before the Supreme Court claimed "this decision
deprives millions of Americans the privacy rights they *think* they
have when they are talking at home on a cordless phone." (emphasis
mine)

He said it also takes away the privacy protection of callers using a
regular phone who, unknowingly, speak with someone using a cordless phone.

Cordless phones, which are in use in an estimated twenty-five percent
of American homes are not covered by the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), which protects conversations on wired and
cellular phones from interception without a judge's permission.


Patrick Townson