HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eab@msc.edu (Edward Bertsch)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: re: cellular phones/encryption/privacy
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:26:09 GMT
Organization: Computer Privacy Digest
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 066, Message 2 of 6

->From: Leonard Erickson <leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
->Subject: Re: cellnet privacy?
->Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
->
->keith.willis@almac.co.uk writes:
->
->>        I wonder how long it is going to be before the business
->>        Cellphone users realise that all their conversations made
->>        over the Cellnet are easily intercepted, in 'cleartext',
->>        with a cheap shortwave scanner?  I managed, completely

[keith was able to listen in to a phone call...]

->
->>        Presumably the legal position on this is similar to police
->>        radio; one can overhear, but not act on the information
->>        received?
->
->Are you sitting down? Here in the US, rather than deal with this
->by adding encrypted transmission options, the cellular phone industry
->got together and convinced Congress to make monitoring cellular
->calls *illegal*. Even if you *don't* tell anyone.

this is the crux of this whole stupid deal.  The reason they did
this is they (the police, the other bozos in this buearacracy
we call the US/State/County/City government and their friends
in the narco-military-industrial-complex want to be able to listen
in to your phone calls, and have acted to slow the use of data
encryption in general, whether it be in cellular phone calls or
in copies of Microsoft word that are intended for international
sale.

->------------------------------
->
->From: Greg Earl Webb <Webbge@che17.ncsu.edu>
->Subject: Re: cellnet privacy?
->
->What is "cleartext" and at what frequencies do they broadcast conversations.
->This is very disconcerning to me as I am an owner of a Cellularphone.
->Is there anyway to scamble conversations so they are not as public.
->Thanks in advance.....
->
->			Greg Webb

scrambling devices are available.  The ones that I have seen
are expensive ($1000 - $2000 US) and work like old fashioned
acoustic modems (they fit over a conventional telephone's
mouth and ear piece, I would imagine you would have some trouble
but not too much to be able to fit it onto your cellular phone
handset (would have a tougher time with a hand held unit)).

These have been advertised in magazines such as HiTimes, and
you might also find them in radio electronics magazine.

My advice is don't say anything on a cellular telephone you
wouldn't be comfortable having someone else hear (and for
that matter, use this same logic with the regular telephone).

Privacy is a myth in this country, I would say.

--

Edward A. Bertsch (eab@msc.edu)   Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Inc.
Operations/User Services          1200 Washington Avenue South
(612) 626-1888 work               Minneapolis, Minnesota  55415
(612) 645-0168 voice mail

"Read _MY_ lips: No vote this time, George"      vote Libertarian in '92
From: gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: 800 numbers (Re: Caller ID decision)
Date: 23 Jul 92 09:21:42 GMT
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 065, Message 1 of 5

>Steve Forrette <stevef@wrq.com> writes:
>> In the case of a "large
>> company" getting a direct T1 with 800 ANI, they are paying for the call.  

So, big deal.

>> Certainly those who wish to remain anonymous have no business expecting 
>> someone else to pay for their calls.

I might agree if every organization that published an 800 number said
"We will record the numbers, names, and other information of those who
call us on our 800 number.  If you do not wish for us to know this
number, please call us at <regular number>.  Regular number would be
guaranteed not to have CID or ISDN or some other method of getting the
calling person's phone number.

No one forces anyone to get an 800 number.  Most 800 numbers receive
calls from people to whom the 800 number has advertised itself.

>> And that's just what you're doing 
>> anytime you call an 800 number - asking the recipient to pay for it.

Perhaps incidentally.  Sometimes it is the only known number.

>> there is a long-standing tradition in US telecom that the person paying for
>> the call gets to know who both parties are.  [...]

Wrong.  There was a long-standing tradition that 800 numbers, that is WATS
lines, did not provide itemized billing.  Additionally, in the days of
Zenith numbers and the like, I believe that the callee was not told who was
calling even though the Zenith number paid.

Rather I see a tradition over at least the last couple decades that no one
knows who is calling until the person identifies him or herself.

Further, the payer has never gotten to know who both parties are.  Sometimes
he got to know both telephone numbers or the presumed name of the caller,
but he never got to know both parties.

david
From: keith.willis@almac.co.uk
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: cellnet privacy?
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:41:02 GMT
Organization: ALMAC PC Board
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 067, Message 5 of 7



GE>   >         I wonder how long it is going to be before the business
GE>   >         Cellphone users realise that all their conversations made
GE>   >         over the Cellnet are easily intercepted, in 'cleartext',
GE>   >         with a cheap shortwave scanner?  I managed, completely

GE>   What is "cleartext" and at what frequencies do they broadcast conversations.
GE>   This is very disconcerning to me as I am an owner of a Cellularphone.
GE>   Is there anyway to scamble conversations so they are not as public.

        What I meant by 'cleartext' is 'unscrambled'.  In other
        words, your conversations are bouncing around in the ether
        available to be picked up by anyone with a cheap (around
        150) shortwave scanner.  The frequencies involved are
        between 860MHz and 940MHz in the UK.

        As for ways of scrambling your conversations in order to
        render them private, the short answer is 'no'.  It may be
        possible to modify a given pair of phones to transmit and
        receive scrambled signals, but ways of doing this are probably
        outside the scope of this conference (and of my limited
        knowledge of electronics!)


---
 ~ PQ 2.15 194 ~ 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**** Keith Willis
**** email:    keith.willis@almac.co.uk
**** bangpath: ...mcsun!uknet!almac!keith.willis
From: gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: SSN Required to Buy Car in Calif
Date: 23 Jul 92 09:29:04 GMT
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 065, Message 2 of 5

In article <comp-privacy1.63.2@pica.army.mil> idela!bell@uunet.uu.net (Mark Bell) writes:
>Well, I bought a car for our kid a couple of weeks ago and
>was stunned to find that they wouldn't sell it to me without SSN!

>The law went into effect a few months ago.

>Is there anyone out there who can advise how to beat this?  I'd be happy
>to guinea-pig a court case if someone has any ideas.

First, I recommend you write your elected officials.

Second, you might try buying a car out of state and bringing it in.
Perhpas no SSN will be required then.  At the very least, only the
DMV should find out.  This method could have adverse tax consequences;
I don't know for sure.  That is, you might have to pay sales tax in
two states.

Third, since I gather you have already purchased the car, it seems the
only recourse you now have is to file a lawsuit.  Claim that the law
violates the *explicit* privacy clause of the CA Constitution.  I
don't have any idea on the possible success of your lawsuit.

David
From: keith.willis@almac.co.uk
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: cellnet privacy?
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:41:02 GMT
Organization: ALMAC PC Board
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 067, Message 4 of 7



LE>   Are you sitting down? Here in the US, rather than deal with this
LE>   by adding encrypted transmission options, the cellular phone industry
LE>   got together and convinced Congress to make monitoring cellular
LE>   calls *illegal*. Even if you *don't* tell anyone.

        Wow!  The ability of any given legislature to go out of its
        way to demonstrate that the law is in fact an ass, never
        ceases to amaze me!  How can it _possibly_ be illegal to
        _receive_ the transmissions?!  As you say, the only sensible
        course would have been to incorporate some form of on-the-fly
        scrambling or encryption.

        I must make the effort to find out how the law stands on this
        over here...

---
 ~ PQ 2.15 194 ~ 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**** Keith Willis
**** email:    keith.willis@almac.co.uk
**** bangpath: ...mcsun!uknet!almac!keith.willis
From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Administrivia
Date: 25 Jul 92 16:08:45 GMT
Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 066, Message 5 of 6


In article <comp-privacy1.62.1@pica.army.mil> comp-privacy@pica.army.mil (Computer Privacy List Moderator) writes:
>   Submissions have really gone down in the last two weeks.  This is my
>first digest this week.  Without submissions this forum can't exist.
>There are lots of topics that haven`t been mentioned here that probably
>should.

Hi Dennis - I used to read telecom-priv digest, and gave up because
I had problems with so much mail in my mailbox.  Now it's on usenet
news I'm back.  *But* I should point out I only discovered you again
by accident, on seeing a posting of yours in another group.  Perhaps
you could send a little note round some of the other groups (comp.dcom
 .telecom, alt.conspiracy, ...) telling them you're here?

Graham

[Moderator's Note:  I wonder if there are many USENET readers who don't
know we exist?  _dennis ]
From: gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: cellnet privacy?
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:01:50 GMT
Organization: Ursa Minor Beta, 402-476-8047 @ 2400
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 067, Message 1 of 7

leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:

>Here in the US, rather than deal with this
>by adding encrypted transmission options, the cellular phone industry
>got together and convinced Congress to make monitoring cellular
>calls *illegal*. Even if you *don't* tell anyone.
>
>This is *especially* silly when you realize that here, the cellular
>phone system uses what used to be part of the UHF TV band. *Lots*
>of old TV sets (especially *small* portables with analog tuning)
>can listen in. 

I can tune into a celluar pager system with my TV, and I have CABLE!
Noise goes right on top of VH-1, messing up the picture.  (Funny thing
is, VH-1 isn't always on that channel -- most of the time they have
CNBC, a business channel!)

It's an auto-tune TV, but not so smart that it'll switch off sound or
picture if it doesn't get a clean signal.  I discovered it by accident
by switching channels that that was the cause.  The cableco think they
can't fix it, so they won't.

I mentioned this on the net before, and one person suggested I ask them
if they are getting interference, then it is quite possible that they
have a signal leaking somewhere along the line, which is an FCC
violation, and that perhaps might get them to fix it.

>Leonard Erickson        leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
>CIS: [70465,203]    70465.203@compuserve.com
>FIDO:   1:105/56  Leonard.Erickson@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org

So it's illegal to intercept a message.  Is it illegal to provide
someone with the means to intercept the messages?  And charging for that
means?

-- gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)

///   ____   \\\  "Sorry, did I say something wrong?  Pardon me for
| |/ /    \ \| |   breathing, which I never do anyway so I don't even 
 \\_|\____/|_//    know why I bother to say it oh God I'm so depressed.
     \_)\\/        Here's another one of those self-satisfied doors.
       `-'         Life... don't talk to me about life...."
From: Webbge@che17.ncsu.edu (Greg Earl Webb)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: cellnet privacy?
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:36:58 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 065, Message 5 of 5

In article <comp-privacy1.64.5@pica.army.mil>, keith.willis@almac.co.uk writes:
> 
> 
>         I wonder how long it is going to be before the business
>         Cellphone users realise that all their conversations made
>         over the Cellnet are easily intercepted, in 'cleartext',
>         with a cheap shortwave scanner?  I managed, completely


What is "cleartext" and at what frequencies do they broadcast conversations.
This is very disconcerning to me as I am an owner of a Cellularphone.
Is there anyway to scamble conversations so they are not as public.
Thanks in advance.....

			Greg Webb
From: idela!bell@uunet.uu.net (Mark Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re:  Computer Privacy Digest V1#066
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:29:40 GMT
Organization: Computer Privacy Digest
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 067, Message 3 of 7

>From: "Willis H. Ware" <willis@iris.rand.org>
>RE cellular phones and interception thereof

>Moreover, I believe I'm correct in saying that it is also illegal to
>market a product [e.g., scanner] that can intercept the cellular
>frequencies.  That reduces the number of people who can do it, if one
>choses to ignore the law, from our 250M population to the subset of 25-40M
>who are electronically astute enough of doing it on their own with parts
>from radio shops.  I guess that's what's called risk reduction!


Cellular phone scanners:  Are they illegal?  I don't believe so.  One 
can buy a nice Bearcat scanner from DAK in Canoga Park , California,
for a little over $200.  They put a message in the box that it is 
"ILLEGAL to use the scanner over the range of 845-860 MhZ according
to Congressional law..."  (I'm probably off a little on the range.)

And they even mention in their advertisement, (paraphrase):  "When
I turned the scanner on, I heard voices discussing some business 
arrngements.  I quickly switched away when I realized that I had
overheard a call girl ring on the cellular frequencies!"  So they 
say right in the ad that you're not 'sposed to do that.
They have an 800 number for ordering.

>choses to ignore the law, from our 250M population to the subset of 25-40M
>who are electronically astute enough of doing it on their own with parts
>from radio shops. 

That estimate sounds high.  I'd say it's more like one in fifty, for a total
of 5 million.  For that five million, there is a book helpfully titled,
"Scanner Modification Handbook" that steps 'em through it.  Even covers
those handheld units.  Available at ham-radio type stores, survivalist
bookstores, that sort of place.  1st amendment seems to cover the book OK.

Mark Bell
Los Angeles  bell@ide.com     "Opinions my own & not my employers..."
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: cellnet privacy?
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:54:05 GMT
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 065, Message 3 of 5

keith.willis@almac.co.uk writes:

>        I wonder how long it is going to be before the business
>        Cellphone users realise that all their conversations made
>        over the Cellnet are easily intercepted, in 'cleartext',
>        with a cheap shortwave scanner?  I managed, completely
>        invertantly, to overhear a conversation between the Personel
>        Director of the company I was working for, and the local
>        Personel Manager, discussing imminent staff redundancies. 
>        Pure coincidence, of course, but a systematic search is not
>        unrealistic.

>        Presumably the legal position on this is similar to police
>        radio; one can overhear, but not act on the information
>        received?

Are you sitting down? Here in the US, rather than deal with this
by adding encrypted transmission options, the cellular phone industry
got together and convinced Congress to make monitoring cellular
calls *illegal*. Even if you *don't* tell anyone.

This is *especially* silly when you realize that here, the cellular
phone system uses what used to be part of the UHF TV band. *Lots*
of old TV sets (especially *small* portables with analog tuning)
can listen in. 
-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/56	 Leonard.Erickson@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS address is checked daily. The others infrequently)
From: willis@iris.rand.org (Willis H. Ware)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Cellular phone scanners
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:44:59 GMT
Organization: Computer Privacy Digest
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 068, Message 1 of 7

RE: Mark Bell <idela!bell@uunet.uu.net>

>>Cellular phone scanners:  Are they illegal?  I don't believe so.  One
>>can buy a nice Bearcat scanner from DAK in Canoga Park , California,
>>for a little over $200.  They put a message in the box that it is
>>"ILLEGAL to use the scanner over the range of 845-860 MhZ according
>>to Congressional law..."

Yes, I know about DAK, its catalog, the publisher's story about tuning
into illicit conversation [at one time advertising copy said that he had
stumbled onto a call-girl ring operating via cellulars], and the slip in
the box.

When DAK first offered the thing for sale a year or more ago, the catalog
also said that these units were no longer allowed to be made and one
should hurry to buy one before the supply was exhausted.  Such cautionary
remarks have disappeared in subsequent catalogs but I don't know why. DAK
as usual seems to have an inexhaustable supply of remaindered products!

Maybe Drew compressed the space, maybe it was all an illusion, maybe there
was a court challenge.  I once also saw a converter that would extend
older Bearcats into the upper range, and it carried the same kind of
warnings; in fact, it said that the manufacturer had negotiated a special
deal to allow him to sell out his inventory and then make no more.
Advertising hype?  Maybe.

But do remember that Virginia makes it illegal to OWN, much less operate,
a radar detector so such laws are possible -- at least until challenged in
court.

If anyone can lay hands on the exact law, we could have a look.

						Willis Ware
From: 0003967939@mcimail.com (Andrew Koran)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: SSN Abuse
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:13:00 GMT
Organization: Computer Privacy Digest
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 068, Message 3 of 7

>No dice.  So I asked if anyone had ever approached them this way,wanting
>to bypass the checking procedure with a 100% cash deposit?  (You know 
>the answer...)  No, no one ever had.  No one ever had a problem withgiving
>the SSN.

   I agree, I noted that their concern for the privacy of your SSN is
lost-UNLESS, they themselves have had a problem in the past with the
abuse of their SSN. I have had the past experience of someone
(ex-mother-in-law) using my SSN to obtain a credit account for a public
utility.  When she skipped town my TRW, TransUnion, and EquiFaxall
picked it up on my credit report.  I spent a year and half removing it
from my TRW and TransUnion credit reports, I'm still working with (read
with great difficulty here) EquiFax as of this date to correct this
type of abuse.  Never looks bad until it happens to you!

Andrew A. Koran
From: davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: 800 MHz receivers (was Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#065)
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:14:50 GMT
Organization: Computer Privacy Digest
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 067, Message 7 of 7

In article <comp-privacy1.66.4@pica.army.mil>, willis@iris.rand.org (Willis H. Ware) writes:
:Moreover, I believe I'm correct in saying that it is also illegal to
:market a product [e.g., scanner] that can intercept the cellular
:frequencies.  That reduces the number of people who can do it, if one
:choses to ignore the law, from our 250M population to the subset of 25-40M
:who are electronically astute enough of doing it on their own with parts
:from radio shops.  I guess that's what's called risk reduction?

I don't think so.  Check in any ham radio or radio monitoring magazine
and you'll find a number of mail order firms advertising receivers
which can pick up cellular calls with no modifications.  The ads always
measure the frequency range of the receiver.

Or perhaps you meant to say that it's illegal to market these devices
_as tools for intercepting cellular calls_ (in which case it is still
legal to market them for other purposes).  This may very well be
illegal; I've never seen these radios advertised as "cellular telephone
receivers", onlu as UHF receivers that can tune to a specific range of
frequencies.

Anyhow, I bought my Yeasu FRG-9600 well after ECPA was passed, from a
well-known US mail order firm, and it was (and still is) capable of
intercepting cellular calls from the moment I unpacked it.
Subject: (no subject given)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 08:57:35 -0700
From: Rob Kling <kling@ics.uci.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society

Dear Bryan,

... Thanks for your note ..... and typo ..... I understand that the Normans
brought an AZERTY keyboard to England, and it didn't catch on .... so the
English didn't actually adopt typewriters until the late 19th century!
(grin)

/Rob Kling
University of California, Irvine
Subject: (no subject given)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 08:15:40 -0500
From: news@tyr.unomaha.edu (UNO Network News Server)
Newsgroups: comp.society

Newsgroups: comp.society
From: momotaro@cwis.unomaha.edu (Bryan Stack)
Subject: Re: Controversies about Computerized Work
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:58:06 GMT

Rob Kling <kling@ics.uci.edu> writes:

> . . . By the early twentieth century, firms began to adopt
>telephones and typewriters, which were both invented in the late 10th
>century.

Begin :-) :
These played a pivotal role in the Norman conquest of England.
Among the cultural changes brought by the Normans was the introduction
of proofreading.
End :-).

No offense intended; I just couldn't resist.
Bryan Stack  (momotaro@cwis.unomaha.edu)