Re: Newt's phone calls

>>I just caught the news reports of Newt Gingrich's cell phone calls being
>>taped by "a little old retired couple" with a scanner.  These were then
>>given to a congressman, who gave them to a newspaper.

Eavesdropping on cellphones is illegal, since there's an expectation of
privacy.
I don't know if tapping the signalling channel is illegal - it's not
eavesdropping on conversations, but it's giving you traffic analysis
including locating your victim.

Cordless phones don't offer an expectation of privacy, by some legal
definition, 
so it's not illegal, and anyone can listen in with scanners, including police,
unless there are state or local laws to the contrary  It'd be interesting
to test
the legal status of digital spread-spectrum cordless phones, which claim on
the box to offer privacy, but there probably aren't enough police forces with
sufficiently advanced scanners to crack them to make it worth transmitting
lots of bait "Yo, Bubba, I hear you've got 10 kilos of dope for sale!" 
"Yeah, it's $10/gram, I'll bring it by your house at 1234 Main Street."

>>The take on this that we won't hear is: "This is outrageous!  Why don't
>>cell-phones offer encryption to ensure our privacy?"

Analog callphones don't.  (U.S.) Digital cellphones may offer encryption,
though it's really dumbed-down encryption.  It'll probably still keep out
Beavis and Butthead, and maybe your local police, but not professionals.
I've forgotten if the CAVE encryption on John Young's site is the US version,
or if the standard we're graciously permitted by our government to use
is a different one, but it's about that strength.  Phil Karn wrote
some time ago about the NSA's armtwisting that bullied the standards
committee into coming up with the stuff.

> There is a very basic reason that cell phones are not encrypted;
> the government does not want them encrypted. 
Analog cellphones were doing well to work at all, and manufacturers and
service providers didn't want to add the complexity of encryption,
especially as a retrofit, so they got a law passed instead.

Tapping cellphones is more trouble than tapping wired phones -
they move around, and to tap them from the phone company end
requires taps everywhere that you activate when you know where
somebody is.  On the other hand, if you can just scan for them,
and crack the wimpy encryption, it's really a lot less work.
And if you overhear other interesting conversations while pursuing
a legally authorized wiretap, that was "good faith"...

#			Thanks;  Bill
# Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp
#     (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies.  Thanks.)

Bill Stewart writes:

>Tapping cellphones is more trouble than tapping wired phones -
>they move around, and to tap them from the phone company end
>requires taps everywhere that you activate when you know where
>somebody is.

Exactly. So how come mom&pop with a scanner were able to record BOTH sides
of the conversation without interruption? This seems pretty suspicious to
me. I think Old Newt was targeted by someone inside the phone company, who
was eavesdropping on all of his cell calls.

Michael Tighe SUN IMP writes:
> 
> Bill Stewart writes:
> 
> >Tapping cellphones is more trouble than tapping wired phones -
> >they move around, and to tap them from the phone company end
> >requires taps everywhere that you activate when you know where
> >somebody is.
> 
> Exactly. So how come mom&pop with a scanner were able to record BOTH sides
> of the conversation without interruption?

If the person with the cell phone doesn't move, then they don't
get handed off to a different cell.  That means that they
stay on the same frquency.  No need to scan channels if they don't switch.

What Bill's saying is that it is difficult to tap the cell phone of
a _particular_ person with just a scanner.  However the people
who taped Newt were just scanning for whatever they could get.  That's easy.

> This seems pretty suspicious to
> me. I think Old Newt was targeted by someone inside the phone company, who
> was eavesdropping on all of his cell calls.

Let's not be paranoid.

It was a conference call, and someone other than Newt was the party
with the cell phone (sorry I forgot the guys name, some representative).
Do you think they (whoever 'they' are) were tapping the phones of
everyone that Newt might talk to?

-- 
Eric Murray  ericm@lne.com  ericm@motorcycle.com  http://www.lne.com/ericm
PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03  92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF

Eric Murray wrote:

> Do you think they (whoever 'they' are) were tapping the phones of
> everyone that Newt might talk to?

 Yes.

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Michael Tighe SUN IMP wrote:

> Bill Stewart writes:
> 
> >Tapping cellphones is more trouble than tapping wired phones -
> >they move around, and to tap them from the phone company end
> >requires taps everywhere that you activate when you know where
> >somebody is.
> 
> Exactly. So how come mom&pop with a scanner were able to record BOTH sides
> of the conversation without interruption? This seems pretty suspicious to
> me. I think Old Newt was targeted by someone inside the phone company, who
> was eavesdropping on all of his cell calls.
> 

It is also possible that somewhere in the chain of information between
mom&pop, the media, and us, the distinction between "cordless phone"
and cellular phone.  I gather it was a conference call that was 
intercepted.  All it takes is one participant using a cordless phone in 
range of one scanner, and the whole conversation is compromised.

(Someone mentioned that they thought cordless phone intercepts weren't 
illegal the way cellular phone intercepts are.  IANAL, but I recall that
intercepting both was made illegal by the same legislation.)

Of course, if the phone in question was a cell phone that happened to 
be stationary -- like a handheld phone in someone's back yard or in a 
restaurant or whatever, the question of the call jumping cells is moot.

Alan Bostick               | To achieve harmony in bad taste is the height
mailto:abostick@netcom.com | of elegance.
news:alt.grelb             |      Jean Genet
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick

Alan Bostick wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Michael Tighe SUN IMP wrote:
> > Bill Stewart writes:[snip]
> (Someone mentioned that they thought cordless phone intercepts weren't
> illegal the way cellular phone intercepts are.  IANAL, but I recall that
> intercepting both was made illegal by the same legislation.)
> Of course, if the phone in question was a cell phone that happened to
> be stationary -- like a handheld phone in someone's back yard or in a
> restaurant or whatever, the question of the call jumping cells is moot.

Cell phone monitoring is illegal everywhere.  Cordless phones are
on a state-by-state basis (illegal in Calif.).

The purpose of the legislation is so that when the feds etc. catch
someone in a major violation (scanning businesses and selling
competitive or security info, whatever), they have a statute to
prosecute on.

Alan Bostick writes:

>It is also possible that somewhere in the chain of information between
>mom&pop, the media, and us, the distinction between "cordless phone"
>and cellular phone.  I gather it was a conference call that was 
>intercepted.  All it takes is one participant using a cordless phone in 
>range of one scanner, and the whole conversation is compromised.

Yes, a conference call (and we do know there were multiple participants)
over a cordless makes sense.

Mmmm.  I'm told that, on most cellphone calls, a scanner will present both
sides of the conversation on the same frequency.  Usually one side will be
louder.  Perhaps there's some feedback from a party's receiver back into
his transmitter?

bd


On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Michael Tighe SUN IMP wrote:

> Bill Stewart writes:
> 
> >Tapping cellphones is more trouble than tapping wired phones -
> >they move around, and to tap them from the phone company end
> >requires taps everywhere that you activate when you know where
> >somebody is.
> 
> Exactly. So how come mom&pop with a scanner were able to record BOTH sides
> of the conversation without interruption? This seems pretty suspicious to
> me. I think Old Newt was targeted by someone inside the phone company, who
> was eavesdropping on all of his cell calls.
> 
>

> Exactly. So how come mom&pop with a scanner were able to record BOTH sides
> of the conversation without interruption? This seems pretty suspicious to
> me. 

You typically only need to tune into either the forward or reverse
channel.  You can usually hear both sides (one may be down a few dB).
This is probably a result of acoustic coupling from the speaker into
the microphone on one or both ends (could also be near-end hybrid
echo).  You see the same situation on both cellular and the 49 MHz
cordless phones.

Eric

Eric Blossom wrote:
> > Exactly. So how come mom&pop with a scanner were able to record
> > BOTH sides of the conversation without interruption? This seems
> > pretty suspicious to me.

> You typically only need to tune into either the forward or reverse
> channel.  You can usually hear both sides (one may be down a few dB).
> This is probably a result of acoustic coupling from the speaker into
> the microphone on one or both ends (could also be near-end hybrid
> echo).  You see the same situation on both cellular and the 49 MHz
> cordless phones.

Actually:
1. 49 mhz is the handset frequency, which doesn't carry both sides,
   or doesn't very well. 46 mhz is the base, and carries both sides
   pretty well.  I don't know how it works on 900 mhz non-digital.

2. My experience on cellular has been that the further the
   mobile phone is from the scanner (on average), the fainter the
   mobile person's voice is going to be, and it is often virtually
   inaudible. There are two 25-mhz cellular ranges, upper and lower,
   and I think 2600 or 411 mag. has detailed which carries what
   info.  Someone with a scanner may be tuning in the upper range
   when they really want the lower, or vice-versa.

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Michael Tighe SUN IMP wrote:

> Bill Stewart writes:
> 
> >Tapping cellphones is more trouble than tapping wired phones -
> >they move around, and to tap them from the phone company end
> >requires taps everywhere that you activate when you know where
> >somebody is.
> 
> Exactly. So how come mom&pop with a scanner were able to record BOTH sides
> of the conversation without interruption? This seems pretty suspicious to
> me. I think Old Newt was targeted by someone inside the phone company, who
> was eavesdropping on all of his cell calls.
> 
> 

Why restrict the list of usual suspects to the phone company?

-r.w.

> Eavesdropping on cellphones is illegal, since there's an expectation of
> privacy.

Ummm,  Eavesdropping on cellphones is illegal, because it's illegal.
See the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (ECPA).  Since when does
anybody talking on a *radio* have an expectation of privacy?

Listening in on normal cordless phones is also now illegal, as a
result of the Communication Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (Digital
Telephony).

Recall that the early working name for Digital Telephony was "The
Digital Telephony and Privacy Improvement Act of 19XX".  Classic
piece of double speak.  The *privacy improvement* was the
criminalization of radio reception.

Eric

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Eric Blossom wrote:

> > Eavesdropping on cellphones is illegal, since there's an expectation of
> > privacy.
> 
> Ummm,  Eavesdropping on cellphones is illegal, because it's illegal.
> See the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (ECPA).  Since when does
> anybody talking on a *radio* have an expectation of privacy?
> 

  Correct. And before they passed their law a few years ago it was only
illegal to disclose the contents of any conversation overheard, not
illegal to listen to it (which is the way it should have stayed, but the
cellphone companies found it cheaper to get a law passed instead of
securing their network).

  Brian

----
  www.eskimo.com/~nexus      Nexus Computing     ftp.eskimo.com/~nexus