From: tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler)
Subject: Re: Washington Post Article
Organization: UMCC
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 04:43:33 GMT

                                          Tuesday, 25 August 1992
Letters to the Editor
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street NW
Washington DC
20071


     As an amateur radio operator with the capability to monitor a
broad range of the radio spectrum --and who frequently enjoys doing
so-- I feel compelled to respond to Mark Lewyn's recent front-page
article about electronic "snoops" who monitor governmental and
other radio communications ('Hackers Scan Airwaves for
Conversations' 17 August 92).

     It is rather ironic that Mr. Lewyn continually choose to refer
to us as "eavesdroppers" or "snoops," but he describes his own
brethren, --a reporter for the Gloucester, MA Daily Times-- as
"accidentally" overhearing one of President Bush's radio
conversations from Air Force One.   

     I wonder which is worse: individuals who monitor as a hobby
and for the most part, keep what they hear to themselves; or the
news media, whose newsrooms monitor much of the same radio
frequencies ultimately for profit. In other instances, the media
has gladly purchased recordings of certain 'private' radio
conversations and published or aired them verbatim, citing the
First Amendment.  In addition to desperately trying to tune in
provocative and potentially 'newsworthy' political tidbits over the
radio, the media is also the biggest and best example of
"...advanced versions of ambulance chasers..." by monitoring local
police and fire communications, then showing up at the scene.

     Lewyn's "electronic ambulance chasers" reference and his broad
statement that we are related to people who break into computer
systems show both ignorance and malice on his part.  With the
exception of some criminals, and the news media, communications
monitoring is a passive hobby.   Was the reference to the
individual who uses a computer program to automatically log radio
frequencies supposed to be an example of our 'computer hacker'
kinship?  As for the comment about "electronic 'peeping Toms,'" I
am inclined to defer to Mark Lewyn's superior knowledge regarding
'Peeping Toms.'  But as far as I'm aware, 99% of monitors simply
sit in the comfort of their homes and listen.  There's no need to
lurk in whatever the electronic equivalent of bushes might be!
     
     Mr. Lewyn quoted Thomas "Birney" (correct spelling is Birnie),
of Cellular Security Group, which was described as a "consulting
group."  What wasn't mentioned is that Mr. Birney's company markets
and sells antenna equipment directly to us "snoops." Birnie
advertises in the hobbyist magazines and his company attends the
major monitoring hobbyist conventions, touting his antennas. His
product line includes an antenna designed specifically to be used
for monitoring cordless phones.  Another of Birnie's antennas is
for 800MHz --a frequency band used for both public safety as well
as cellular telephones.  Birney includes "FREE CELLULAR [telephone]
FREQUENCY CHARTS" with each 800MHz antenna sold.  Birnie also
provides similar charts for purchasers of his cordless telephones
and baby monitors.

     
     Humans are by nature, curious creatures.  Radio signals are,
by nature, open to interception by anyone who has simple receiving
equipment.  The ease at which most radio signals can be intercepted
--combined with human nature-- make communications monitoring an
interesting, educational and at times, exciting hobby.  Any non-
secure radio circuit can and will be monitored.  This logic applies
to military communications just as much as it does to garbage truck
radios.  The government is well aware that non-secure circuits can
and are intercepted by both hobbyists as well as those with a
different motivation (foreign intelligence agencies, and members of
the press).   The aircraft flown on White House missions still use
some non-secured voice circuits for sensitive but unclassified
communications, but they also have and use a variety of
sophisticated, secure circuits for other traffic.

     While most cellular, cordless phone & other radio
communications users (including government VIPs) might be ignorant
of this, in most cases it is their own fault.  In the case of
cellular phones, much of the blame lies with the cellular industry,
which has and will continue to downplay the lack of privacy of
cellular systems, up until their digital networks are phased in. At
that time, the inherent privacy aspects of the digital cellular
phones will be used as a selling point.

     Those who wish to protect the confidentiality of their radio
communications have a duty to use secured communications circuits,
instead of expecting that others will either avoid certain
frequencies outright, or plug their ears.  The old 'Gentlemen do
not read each other's mail' credo is nice to express in public, but
it isn't too realistic.  

     Mark Lewyn's article had the potential to be an important and
informative piece.  Unfortunately, his bias spoke louder than
anything else.



                                                       Sincerely,


                                                Tim Tyler, KA8VIR



                                         

-- 
 Tim Tyler   Internet: tim@ais.org  MCI Mail: 442-5735  C$erve: 72571,1005
P.O. Box 443     Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA
Ypsilanti MI
48197-0443                  PADI, USPA, AFCEA, INEOA, P226, VFR700, etc.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave