Previous IssueIndexNext IssueInfoSearchingSubmit ArticleFTPDo not even think about clicking on this button

The Risks Digest

Forum on Risks to the Public in Computers and Related Systems

ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator

 

Volume 3: Issue 10

Friday, 20 June 1986

Contents

o Re: Privacy Legislation & Cellular Swiss Cheese (RISKS-3.8)
Geoff Goodfellow
o Re: Privacy Legislation (RISKS-3.6) [divulging]
Dan Franklin
o Re: Privacy Legislation (RISKS-3.6) [radar detectors]
Herb Lin
o Info on RISKS (comp.risks)
---------------------------------------------

Re: Privacy Legislation & Cellular Swiss Cheese (RISKS-3.8)

the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow 19 Jun 86 11:19:03 EDT (Thu)
I co-authored an article on the ease of which cellular can be spoofed,
COMINT'd and SIGINT'd in the November issue of PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY.  An on-line copy of the article may be FTP'd with 'anonymous'
login from [SRI-CSL]
---------------------------------------------

Re: RISKS-3.8

Dan Franklin Fri, 20 Jun 86 14:38:35 EDT
> Does anyone have any idea how the last part (radio telephones) could be
> legally supported in view of other legal freedoms?  I thought that one
> was free to listen to any frequency one wished in the US (Canada too).
> You don't have to trespass to receive radio signals.

Receive them, yes; tell anyone else what you heard, no.  As I understand
the law, if a radio signal is part of a conversation--that is, clearly
directed at some specific other person--you are forbidden to divulge the
contents of that signal to a third party.  You might be forbidden to make
any other use of it, too; I don't remember for certain.

So eavesdropping is already suspect in current law, and it would not be
such a big change to say, for instance, that you could not *intentionally*
receive radiotelephone signals.  If your neighbor's radiotelephone
happened to come in on your stereo, you wouldn't then be breaking the law.
I do not actually know what the new law says, but there do exist ways to
safeguard privacy without compromising the "right to receive".

    Dan Franklin

---------------------------------------------

Privacy legislation (RISKS-3.6)

Tue, 17 Jun 1986 00:32 EDT
   [On the same topic...]

Not true.  States routinely ban the use of radar detectors, and that
is nothing more than "listening to a frequency."  

   [Well, things seem to be changing.  In California, PASSIVE detectors
    are now legal, and can be bought at Radio Shack among others.  Mail
    order outfits are also doing a boom business.  I presume this is true
    in other states as well.  ACTIVE JAMMERS are of course still illegal.
    [[This messasge does not constitute an endorsement on the advisability
      of using a detector, or of the reliability of any such product.  I
      won't even contemplate the risks involved of using one.]]  PGN]

---------------------------------------------

Previous IssueIndexNext IssueInfoSearchingSubmit ArticleFTPDo not even think about clicking on this button

Report problems with the web pages to the maintainer