🚀 go-pugleaf

To spark further interest and letter writing, I submit excerpts of
a letter I sent to several parties in February 1986:

Dear Senator Mathias:

     [....]
     Let me state clearly that I believe the Act in its present form
is *bad* legislation.  There is a need to strengthen the 1968 wire-
tapping laws in some respects, but S-2575 extends "protection"
beyond that which is technically reasonable or even believable.

     In particular, I agree that wiretapping protection should be
independent of the *content* and representation of a message.  That
is, video, facsimile, digital, etc. signals deserve just the same
protection as voice signal.

     The problem is that S-2575 treats the medium of transmission
(radio, wire, photoelectric) just as generally as the content, and
this is in fundamental conflict with the differing physical behavior
of the different media.

     Some means of transmission are inherently point-to-point -- wire,
narrowbeam microwave, and the like.  Information thus sent is targeted
to a particular recipient, much as first class mail is enveloped and
addressed to a particular person.  And those communications deserve much
the same legal protection as first class mail.

     Most electromagnetic emissions (radio), in contrast, are inherently
omnidirectional -- that is, just as physically available to many people
as to the intended recipient.  It is no more reasonable to make illegal
the reception of [some] such broadcasts than it would be to forbid the
reading of certain pages of the Washington Post.

     But if this argument is ignored, with the claim that it is *vital*
that the public not be permitted to receive some radio broadcasts (or
to read certain pages of the Post), would the resulting legislation be
useful?  The answer is no -- a prudent, informed businessman would no
sooner discuss confidential matters on an unencrypted cellular radio-
telephone call than he would publish the same material in the Post.

     In both cases, he knows [or should know] that the media of trans-
mission are inherently available to the public, and that with or without
S-2575, it would not be prudent to shout his affairs to the public.

     [...]  the sort of protection S-2575 attempts to provide is worse
than useless.  It lulls those who don't understand the technology
into a false sense of security, believing that their communications are
not being overheard, simply because it is illegal to overhear them.
No doubt this is exactly why the cellular telephone industry supports
the Bill -- a pacified public will buy more cellphones and use them
more freely.

     [....]
						Respectfully yours,
						/s/ R. Jesse

=======
The Mobile Communications Division of the Electronic Industries Assoc.
[EIA] distributed around Capitol Hill an excellent letter dated July
10, 1986 to the same general effect as the above, with some additional
points:

+  "In the case of cordless telephones the FCC requires product labeling
   to inform the consumer that 'privacy of communications may not be ensured
   when using this phone.'  We believe that consumer education is a more
   appropriate response to this issue than is the proposed legislation."

+  the General Counsel of the FCC told the US DoJ in April 86 "'...we
   propose that the Safe Streets Act not prohibit interception of the
   radio portion of telephone communications where the interception is
   neither divulged nor used for the benefit of the interceptor or
   another not entitled thereto.'"

+  "There is also Congressional precedent acknowledging the concept of
   encryption.  When Congress adopted Section 705 of the Communications
   Act in 1984, it exempted from penalty the interception of satellite
   cable programming by individuals for private viewing if 'the programming
   involved is not encrypted.'"

=======
Readers of Telecom might think that there would be widespread opposition
to this bill.  Not so!  The ease (unanimous voice vote?) and silence
with which it passed the House is evidence.  The EIA appears to be the
first major voice to rise against it generally.  [I understand that the
Amateur Radio Relay League was objecting in the early stages, but was
placated by additional language excluding ham bands, and has been more or
less quiet since.]

In contrast, the support for the Bill is vocal and very well organized.
And the weight of the booboisie is behind it with the simplistic notion
that "decent people don't listen in on other people's phone calls.  let's
make it illegal."

And we can guess that if the bill becomes law, we'll hear no objection
from the Supreme Court.