1853 lines
85 KiB
Plaintext
1853 lines
85 KiB
Plaintext
ComSec Letter
|
||
|
||
Editor: James A. Ross
|
||
|
||
YOGO 2
|
||
|
||
1986
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
COMSEC LETTER
|
||
|
||
|
||
The ComSec Letter was started in 1984, The Year Of George
|
||
Orwell, by Jim Ross. Initially it was mailed at no charge to
|
||
everyone on his mailing list, and it was later offered by
|
||
subscription. After the founding of the Communication Security
|
||
Association, the letter became its official organ. In 1989 the
|
||
association decided to create a new organ, Comsec Journal; and,
|
||
in order to minimize confusion, the name of this letter was
|
||
changed to Surveillance.
|
||
|
||
What follows is an edited version of the contents of one
|
||
year of the letter. (The letter has been edited to remove
|
||
topical, superfluous, and outdated items.)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Ross Engineering, Inc.
|
||
7906 Hope Valley Court
|
||
Adamstown, MD 21710
|
||
Tel: 301-831-8400; Fax: 301-874-5100 January, 1986
|
||
|
||
|
||
THE COMSEC ASSOCIATION
|
||
|
||
COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ASSOCIATION, MEMBERS-ONLY NEWSLETTER
|
||
The Board of Directors has decided that, starting in January,
|
||
the COMSEC LETTER will become the official organ of the
|
||
association. Subscriptions currently in force will be honored,
|
||
but no further independent subscriptions will be accepted.
|
||
Membership dues in the Comsec Association are:
|
||
Individual Professional
|
||
USA, Canada, Mexico $50 per year
|
||
Other Countries $70 per year
|
||
Student (send proof of status) $10 per year
|
||
Membership applications and other questions to;
|
||
CSA, Membership Services
|
||
POB 3554
|
||
Frederick, MD 21701-0904.
|
||
|
||
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
|
||
The Comsec Association was formed with three directors, Arnold
|
||
Blu menthal, James A. Ross, and Craig Silver. Once underway it
|
||
became apparent that Craig, the lawyer who handled the
|
||
incorporation, might find himself in a conflict situation so
|
||
Craig resigned and became our counsel, and Ken Taylor was elected
|
||
to the vacant directorship.
|
||
Shortly we expect to modify the by-laws to provide for more
|
||
direc tors so that we'll have more people helping to guide our
|
||
growth. Many of our early supporters have indicated an interest
|
||
in working to develop the association, and we expect to take
|
||
advantage of their willingness to serve. We'll keep you informed.
|
||
|
||
|
||
MEETINGS, 1986
|
||
In 1985 we contracted with a conference organizing firm to
|
||
manage COMSEC EXPO '85, but we plan to do things differently in
|
||
1986. Cur rently there are plans developing for two meetings
|
||
which will be joint efforts between the national organization and
|
||
local chapters. At this writing, we have heard from Paul Bowling
|
||
and Gene Smith in the Washington, DC area and Ben Harroll in
|
||
California in this regard. Please contact one of these people if
|
||
you can participate.
|
||
|
||
THANKS
|
||
To all of the volunteers whose hundreds of hours of unpaid
|
||
effort contributed to the great panels at COMSEC EXPO '85: THANKS
|
||
|
||
|
||
LAWS
|
||
As the laws relating to COMSEC are tested, we'll try to keep you
|
||
advised, and we encourage you to mail in information relating to
|
||
the testing of the laws -- newspaper clippings from all over
|
||
would be very helpful.
|
||
On the question of expectation of privacy, for instance, the US
|
||
District Court for Connecticut recently ruled that you do not
|
||
have a Fourth Amendment right to privacy while engaged in a
|
||
private conversation on a public street (United States vs. Lopez,
|
||
US District Court for Connecticut, H-84-31, 6-7-84).
|
||
So we're back to the question of whether an individual has an
|
||
expectation of privacy, and this court thinks that you have no
|
||
expectation of privacy on a public street. Seems reasonable.
|
||
Now let's consider another public place such as a restaurant. Do
|
||
you have an expectation of privacy there? How about when you make
|
||
a phone call?
|
||
|
||
SECURITY ACADEMY
|
||
Ken Taylor is proceeding apace with plans for the Security
|
||
Academy to be located in the Miami area. The objective is to
|
||
establish a training and education facility which will offer
|
||
courses on every aspect of security. If you have any ideas along
|
||
this line, yer ol' ed would sure like to hear from you.
|
||
|
||
DID YOUR EDITOR GOOF?
|
||
He's afraid that he did.
|
||
In trying to figure out what the new privacy law means your ol'
|
||
editor jumped to a hasty conclusion which was wrong!
|
||
Here's what happened.
|
||
The new law says the old law heading should be amended by adding
|
||
"AND OTHER ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION" after "WIRE".
|
||
Your ed assumed that the new wording would be "WIRE AND OTHER
|
||
ELEC TRONIC COMMUNICATION". Seems reasonable, even now. However,
|
||
it's not correct.
|
||
Really, one with as many years and gray hairs as your editor
|
||
should not have to be reminded to "RTP", but that's the case
|
||
here. (RTP means "Read The Problem".) (Probably it should be
|
||
amended to be RTPS for "Read The Problem Stupid"!)
|
||
Read exactly, the instruction says to add the new words; it does
|
||
not say to substitute the new words for the ones that used to
|
||
follow "WIRE". And there's the rub. The old words are still
|
||
there, and the proposed law does not remove protection of oral
|
||
communication as had been published earlier in this letter.
|
||
Sincere apologies to all who were misled.
|
||
The proposed new law, however, has many faults. Read "Monitoring
|
||
Times" or "Popular Communications" for their points of view. Read
|
||
COMSEC LETTER for your editor's point of view, and those of any
|
||
mem bers of CSA who care to write in on the subject.
|
||
|
||
DID YOU FORGET?
|
||
Subscriptions do expire. All good things must come to an end,
|
||
but you can renew this good thing by joining (or renewing your
|
||
member ship in) the Communications Security Association.
|
||
|
||
INTERESTING PRODUCT
|
||
Each time we show this product at our seminar it commands a
|
||
great deal of attention. It's called a binaural amplifier, and
|
||
was recently on sale at your nearby Radio Shack for $21.95. It is
|
||
about the size of a pack of cigarets, although much thinner. It
|
||
contains two microphones and amplifiers, and provides binaural
|
||
sound.
|
||
Our investigator friends see great potential in this tiny
|
||
device.
|
||
Title III? We don't think so, because its design does not render
|
||
it primarily useful for surreptitious interception of oral or
|
||
wire communications.
|
||
Two part numbers: 33-1091 & 33-1000.
|
||
|
||
MONITORING TIMES
|
||
Bob Grove, editor of Monitoring Times, suggested a few issues
|
||
ago that it might be a good idea for short wave listeners to
|
||
collect information to help the FCC find the bootleggers (no, not
|
||
the kind who run moonshine; he was referring to the kind who
|
||
transmit illegally).
|
||
The response to his editorial suggestion was really surprising.
|
||
Most people who responded acted as though bootlegging was as
|
||
American as apple pie. They seem to take the position that
|
||
breaking the law is a traditional right enjoyed by all true
|
||
Americans.
|
||
What kind of a generation have we spawned?!?!!
|
||
|
||
ANOTHER NEWSLETTER
|
||
Recently one of our occasional anonymous contributors sent us a
|
||
copy of a newsletter that is new to us. It's called YOUTH ACTION
|
||
News. The address is: POB 312, Alexandria, VA 22313. (We
|
||
searched, but found no subscription information.)
|
||
Some of the letter's headlines might give you an idea of its
|
||
content:
|
||
"DIABOLIC SOVIET WARFARE"
|
||
"SATANIC SOVIET BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS"
|
||
"SOVIET MIND-CONTROL ATTACKS AGAINST THREE US PRESIDENTS"
|
||
"ELECTRONIC MIND-ZAPPING WEAPONS"
|
||
"SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTATION ON SOVIET WEATHERWAR TECHNIQUES"
|
||
"SOVIET USE OF SCALAR INTERFEROMETRY"
|
||
"FREAK US WEATHER, EVIDENCE OF USSR TESLA-STYLE WEATHERWAR"
|
||
Despite this letter's use of some undefined terms (scalar
|
||
interferometry, Tesla-style magnifying transmitters, airquakes,
|
||
cold explosions, low frequency emissions with psychoactive
|
||
characteristics, etc.), and its scare headlines, it does contain
|
||
something which seems to be worthy of consideration -- if the
|
||
facts are correctly reported.
|
||
The part of the letter which intrigues us is the report, by
|
||
various qualified observers, of "cold explosions". According to
|
||
the newsletter, people on five different airplanes reported
|
||
seeing a giant mushroom cloud 180 miles off the coast of Japan on
|
||
April 9, 1984. One of the observers was a pilot with B-47 and
|
||
B-52 experience, and he reported that there was no flash of light
|
||
associated with the mushroom cloud which rose to an altitude of
|
||
60,000 feet and was 150 miles wide.
|
||
Other observers reported similar sightings at other times and
|
||
locations. Certainly such events should have been reported in
|
||
the press, but we saw nothing about it.
|
||
Can any reader of this letter shed any light on this?
|
||
Can any reader of this letter shed any light on the YOUTH ACTION
|
||
News newsletter, or its sponsoring organization?
|
||
|
||
CORRECTION
|
||
In our YOGO 1.09 issue we listed various sources of information
|
||
about telephones, and we've heard back from one of our
|
||
subscribers that one of the addresses is no longer valid. So, if
|
||
you want to correct your records, strike the following address:
|
||
Western Electric Company, IDC Commercial Sales, Box 26205,
|
||
Indianapolis, IN 46226
|
||
|
||
TAP
|
||
People keep telling us that TAP is dead. Somehow we think that
|
||
it will start up again. If you are a subscriber, you may yet see
|
||
some more issues.
|
||
|
||
FEEDBACK
|
||
From Joe Wilson Elliott (via several phone calls, paraphrased):
|
||
Q. "COMSEC EXPO '85 and your COMSEC LETTER seem to be getting
|
||
into areas other than countermeasures, and that's what they are
|
||
supposed to be concerned with. Too much on data, and computers.
|
||
What we're interested in is bugs and taps and countermeasures."
|
||
Don't you think that you ought to stick to TSCM?
|
||
A. Well Joe, when this letter first started, we called it COMSEC
|
||
LETTER because that is the subject that we were writing about.
|
||
Somehow though, in these past two years, we've discovered that it
|
||
is next to impossible to draw a line between protection of
|
||
information in transit and information in storage.
|
||
In the old days, stored information was in the form of paper
|
||
documents (mostly), and if the documents were stolen, an
|
||
inventory would reveal the loss. If the bad guy wanted to steal
|
||
secrets without leaving a telltale void behind, he photographed
|
||
the documents. The other method of stealing secrets covertly was
|
||
to plant a bug or tap a telephone; and the TSCM profession was
|
||
spawned to try to protect against these electronic threats. Now,
|
||
so much information is stored electronically, and so much of it
|
||
is accessible by telephone from anywhere, that there is an
|
||
immense new problem, e.g., a major theft can take place, and
|
||
there is no way to determine what was taken -- or even that a
|
||
theft occurred.
|
||
It seems reasonable that those professionals who worked to
|
||
detect bugs and taps should extend themselves to provide
|
||
protection against theft of all types of information.
|
||
Consider this: Information copied from a floppy disk or hard
|
||
disk in seconds is equivalent in volume to the amount of
|
||
information which could be collected by a tap in a few years --
|
||
if the tapper is lucky.
|
||
Don't you think that information that is in digital form is
|
||
worthy of professional protection as well as information that is
|
||
being transmitted by voice in analog form?
|
||
|
||
|
||
February, 1986
|
||
|
||
RECENT EVENT WITH A MORAL TO IT
|
||
Recently in a large east coast city a debugging team was
|
||
diligently searching for communications compromises. As they
|
||
should have, they looked into the dropped ceiling, but found such
|
||
a mess of abandoned wiring that they advised their client to
|
||
remove all of the unused wire. Days later, while the client was
|
||
in the process of doing this, he found two small black items with
|
||
a wire coming out of each one. You guessed it; they were radio
|
||
transmitters.
|
||
The lawyer for the firm took one of the transmitters to the FBI
|
||
complaining of government infringement on lawyer-client
|
||
confidentiality, etc. Thereupon the FBI allowed the lawyer listen
|
||
to a recording of the activities of the sweep team. Oh,
|
||
embarrassment!
|
||
Upon being questioned by his employer, the spectrum analyzer
|
||
operator admitted that he had seen at least one whopper of a
|
||
signal that he could not identify, but said that he could see no
|
||
modulation on it so he didn't worry about it.
|
||
What's the moral to the story? It's a moral for all sweep team
|
||
technicians: if you find something that you do not understand,
|
||
point it out to the boss. He's not going to fire you because you
|
||
don't understand. Maybe he won't understand, but at least he's
|
||
the one who is responsible for the operation, so let him figure
|
||
out what to do about it. He'll be much happier to be asked to
|
||
figure it out than to be super-embarrassed later, as was the man
|
||
whose team's activities were played back to his client's lawyer.
|
||
Guaranteed.
|
||
|
||
Q & A
|
||
Q. Don't you think that you might be most apt to miss the most
|
||
sophisticated bugs and taps?
|
||
A. To answer this question accurately, we must first define
|
||
terms. Let's first consider what is meant by a sophisticated bug
|
||
or tap. To us, the most elegant systems are the simple ones; so
|
||
if your idea of a sophisticated is one which costs a lot to
|
||
design and build, we have a basic misunderstanding at the outset.
|
||
To put in into perspective, we can use less than $10 worth of
|
||
electronic components to build a telephone tap that cannot be
|
||
electronically detected by any combination of equipment and
|
||
techniques other than a physical inspection of every inch of the
|
||
telephone line. If you want a bugging system that cannot be
|
||
detected by any combination of equipment and techniques other
|
||
than physical inspection, the cost for the bugging system is in
|
||
the same range.
|
||
So price is no criterion in determining the level of
|
||
sophistication of a tap or bug. In fact, the simplest bugging
|
||
system consists of a modification of an existing telephone, and
|
||
the cost of the components in this system is zero.
|
||
(However, there is one aspect of bugging and tapping in which
|
||
the amount of money available is extremely important sometimes --
|
||
and that relates to attaining access to the target area. If the
|
||
bugger has to bribe someone, or to hire someone to break in to
|
||
the target area, then the price tag is significant.)
|
||
We do not mean to imply that all good attacks are inexpensive.
|
||
There are some attacks which would entail high costs. They
|
||
include special attacks such as super-high frequency RF, exotic
|
||
modulation techniques, unusual carriers, and modification of some
|
||
of the modern electronic telephones and systems.
|
||
So the overall answer to the question is that finding an
|
||
on-premises tap or bug is probable if you have an experienced
|
||
team with the proper equipment, and the other side has normal
|
||
resources. On the other hand, if the other side has tremendous
|
||
resources (time, access and money) -- they'll probably beat you
|
||
most times.
|
||
However, it's a real world. The enemy is not ten feet tall. He
|
||
does not have unlimited resources. He is not perfect. He does
|
||
make mistakes, and leave evidence of his activities. If your team
|
||
is a good one, and properly equipped, and disciplined, and
|
||
thorough, your team is going to find the on-premises system with
|
||
regularity.
|
||
Keep in mind, though, this very important caveat: "There is no
|
||
electronic device or system that can detect even a simple
|
||
off-premises tap.
|
||
|
||
FEEDBACK
|
||
During the past couple of years we have heard many stories about
|
||
field activities of TSCM teams (such as the story with a moral to
|
||
it elsewhere in this issue). As space permits, we'll share many
|
||
of those stories with you, including the details (with pictures
|
||
also) of Ha Ha boxes, some astounding claims by some folks, and
|
||
information on new products, ideas, etc. YOUR comments are
|
||
solicited.
|
||
|
||
NEW CATALOG
|
||
Sherwood Communications Associates is offering its new catalog,
|
||
with one year of updates, for $20. Interesting, and eclectic,
|
||
selection of items, some very expensive and some very
|
||
inexpensive. Order from SCA, POB 535, Southampton, PA 18966.
|
||
|
||
OXYMORON
|
||
This word means a figure of speech which appears to be
|
||
self-contradictory. The first example that your editor ever heard
|
||
was "military mind" and he bristled somewhat at that because, at
|
||
the time, he was wearing army green. Another example is
|
||
"Independent Grocers Association". You can certainly think of
|
||
many more.
|
||
Anyway, what should we call a real-life combination which is
|
||
self-contradictory? The example that we have in mind concerns a
|
||
Bell Operating Company which offers a device for sale which is
|
||
forbidden by that company's tariff. This BOC operates under
|
||
authority of a tariff (which it prepared) which requires that
|
||
anyone recording a telephone conversation must cause a beep tone
|
||
on the line to warn all parties that the call is being recorded.
|
||
The penalty for failure to comply is termination of telephone
|
||
service. The oxymoron-like situation is that this same BOC sells
|
||
a telephone answering machine that has a call recording
|
||
capability, but no capability to produce a beep tone.
|
||
That's right. This company has written a tariff which says that
|
||
calls may only be recorded if the recording device emits an
|
||
audible beep tone to warn all parties that the call is being
|
||
recorded, and at the same time they sell equipment which can
|
||
record conversations but cannot generate the required tone.
|
||
|
||
BOOKS WORTHY OF SPECIAL NOTE
|
||
We have touted this book before, but it is truly outstanding and
|
||
should be studied by anyone who needs to begin to understand how
|
||
the telephone and the telephone system work.
|
||
Understanding Telephone Electronics. 292 pages. Paper
|
||
back. $3.49 at Radio Shack. Developed and published by
|
||
Texas Instruments Learning Center. Excellent book. Prac
|
||
tical. No theoretical errors. Contains absolutely none
|
||
of the garbage and mistakes propagated by generations of
|
||
"experts" in the field.
|
||
Since the first edition was published, a new, larger, and more
|
||
expensive edition has been created. It is available as follows:
|
||
Second Edition. LCB8482. $14.95 plus 1.25 S&H from:
|
||
Texas Instruments, Inc.
|
||
POB 225474, MS8218
|
||
Dallas, TX 75265
|
||
|
||
If you are concerned about invasions of privacy in contravention
|
||
of the Freedom of Information Act, the following book will open
|
||
your eyes.
|
||
The Private Sector by George O'Toole. W.W. Norton & Co.
|
||
1978. 250 pages. Hardcover. $10.95. Reveals the existence
|
||
of the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU), a non-
|
||
government organization, dedicated to compiling dossiers
|
||
on private citizens, which seems to be immune to penetra
|
||
tion under the provisions of the FOIA.
|
||
|
||
If any aspect of George Orwell's fantasies (1984 and Animal
|
||
Farm) seem too far out, you should look into this book.
|
||
Secret Agenda by Jim Hougan. Random House. 1984. 148
|
||
pages. Hardcover. $19.95. The author tells his version of
|
||
The Watergate Affair, which is a far cry from what we got
|
||
from the news media. For instance, he points out that the
|
||
telephone calls monitored in Howard Johnsons Hotel were
|
||
not Democrat National Committee business; they were calls
|
||
to prostitutes! However titillating that information may
|
||
be, the book contains some chilling observations, e.g.,
|
||
1. page 90. CIA agents putting their director under sur
|
||
veillance with written orders stating "At no time should
|
||
the Director be made aware of SUGAR coverage......"
|
||
2. page 274. The Secretary of Defense "...... counter
|
||
manding in advance any 'unwarranted military directives'
|
||
that President Nixon might issue."
|
||
3. page 312. "... Alexander Haig had ordered the Army's
|
||
Criminal Investigation Command (CIC) to make a study of
|
||
the President's alleged ties to organized crime ....."
|
||
|
||
TRAINING COURSES
|
||
|
||
Audio Intelligence Devices measures training
|
||
1400 NW 62nd St.
|
||
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
|
||
305-776-5000
|
||
|
||
Dektor one week and two week
|
||
515 Barnard St. technician training courses
|
||
Savannah, GA 31401
|
||
912-238-0075
|
||
|
||
Information Security Associates four day technician course
|
||
350 Fairfield Ave.
|
||
Stamford, CT 06902
|
||
203-357-8051
|
||
|
||
Jarvis Intl. Intelligence, Inc. measures and countermeasures
|
||
3212 N. 74th Ave. E training and service
|
||
Tulsa, OK 74115 also, methods of entry, etc.
|
||
918-835-3130
|
||
|
||
Ross Engineering, Inc. two-day seminar on Comsec
|
||
7906 Hope Valley Ct. for managers and
|
||
investigators
|
||
Adamstown, MD 21710 special short briefings
|
||
301-831-8400
|
||
|
||
Texas A&M University System countermeasures technician
|
||
College Station, TX training
|
||
409-845-6391
|
||
|
||
COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ASSOCIATION, MEMBERS-ONLY NEWSLETTER
|
||
(This announcement is repeated for the benefit of those who may
|
||
have missed it in the earlier edition.)
|
||
The Board of Directors has decided that, starting in January,
|
||
the COMSEC LETTER will become the official organ of the
|
||
association. Subscriptions currently in force will be honored,
|
||
but no further independent subscriptions will be accepted.
|
||
Membership dues in the Comsec Association are:
|
||
Individual Professional
|
||
USA, Canada, Mexico $50 per year
|
||
Other Countries $70 per year
|
||
Student (send proof of status) $10 per year
|
||
Membership applications and other questions to;
|
||
CSA, Membership Services
|
||
POB 3554
|
||
Frederick, MD 21701-0904.
|
||
|
||
|
||
PHOTOSENSITIVE EPILEPSY
|
||
Computer Security Digest reports that some people suffer
|
||
seizures when the flashing rate of the VDT is four to ten pulses
|
||
per second. This may be the same phenomenon that one of the
|
||
flying magazines reported years ago under the name of flicker
|
||
vertigo. That report said that the critical rate was twelve
|
||
pulses per second.
|
||
March, 1986
|
||
|
||
COMSEC ASSOCIATION
|
||
The COMSEC Association is gradually beginning to take form with
|
||
some volunteers in the DC area working on membership programs and
|
||
meeting plans for 1986. Sometime this summer, we'll be
|
||
announcing plans for at least one national meeting this year. No
|
||
grand plans, just a simple meeting with a few exhibitors, and
|
||
some conferences featuring some of the most knowledgeable people
|
||
in various fields.
|
||
Our Board of Directors has been increased in size from three to
|
||
five and we expect to increase the size again before the end of
|
||
the year. Elected to the two new seats were Paul Bowling and E.T.
|
||
(Gene) Smith. They are working together to expand the membership
|
||
and to set up our 1986 meeting in the Washington, DC area. If you
|
||
have any questions, or if you want to volunteer to help, call
|
||
Paul on 301-843-3809 or Gene on 703-533-8555.
|
||
If all goes well, we expect to be able to add staff by summer
|
||
and that should put an end to the communications problems that
|
||
have existed with only one volunteer worker to handle everything.
|
||
|
||
|
||
PRIVACY OF PHONE CALLS
|
||
The public switched telephone network is not secure. Any
|
||
information being transmitted over metal wires can be picked off
|
||
by a third party easily and with almost no chance of being
|
||
detected.
|
||
Note that we say any information, and that is precisely what we
|
||
mean. Whatever is being carried over those wires, be it analog,
|
||
dig ital, or any combination, can be picked off very easily.
|
||
What level of technical expertise is necessary? Well, we've said
|
||
it before and testified to it in federal court: about ninth grade
|
||
hobbyist. In fact, one installer who testified in the same court
|
||
case said that he had installed his first extension phone when he
|
||
was nine years old! So our ninth grade hobbyist might just be a
|
||
mite overqualified.
|
||
|
||
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
|
||
Recently the Washington Post ran an editorial under the heading
|
||
"Taps without Wires", and your editor thought that the Post
|
||
readership would benefit from exposure to his ideas on the
|
||
subject, and so, sent the following letter to the Post.
|
||
|
||
Dear Editor:
|
||
|
||
Your editorial "Taps without Wires" concludes that the federal
|
||
|
||
laws relating to communications privacy should be
|
||
updated and upgraded soon. As an engineer who has testified
|
||
as an expert in federal court as to the meaning of the old
|
||
(1968) law, I agree with your conclusion wholeheartedly.
|
||
|
||
However, I cannot endorse your implication that the old law
|
||
prohibits eavesdropping on voice communication between
|
||
humans, because it does not. In fact, none of those words
|
||
is even used in the old law. Instead, it prohibits "surrep
|
||
titious interception of oral or wire communication" and
|
||
defines interception as the "aural acquisition" of the con
|
||
tents of oral or wire communication.
|
||
|
||
That means that, under the 1968 law, if no one other than
|
||
the intended recipient ever heard the contents of a message
|
||
transmitted by wire, then no interception took place. Two
|
||
absurd scenarios flow from the convoluted language of this
|
||
law:
|
||
|
||
1.if a data transmission (a series of audible tones)
|
||
is recorded and played back so that it is heard by a
|
||
human (or animal) a felony has taken place -- even
|
||
though the message was never understood by anyone
|
||
other than the recipient, or...
|
||
|
||
2. if a voice communication between humans has been
|
||
recorded and transcribed into written form by modern
|
||
computer techniques without ever being heard as sound
|
||
by man or beast, then no violation of the law has
|
||
occurred -- even though the full content of the mes
|
||
sage is available to the eavesdropper.
|
||
|
||
Our legislators in 1968 set out to prohibit eavesdropping
|
||
on voice communications between humans, but they wrote
|
||
something with an entirely different meaning.
|
||
|
||
Yes, change is in order. Let us hope that Congress will
|
||
listen to some unbiased technical advice, and write a law
|
||
that will correct the deficiencies of the old law and be
|
||
enforceable.
|
||
|
||
P.S. I recognize that my views are contradictory to what
|
||
has appeared in the lay press, and even to some of the
|
||
material provided to the Congress by their Office of Tech
|
||
nology Assessment. However, before throwing my letter into
|
||
file 13, I ask that you do either or both of the following
|
||
things: 1. read the law, or 2. call me.
|
||
|
||
So far as I know, I am the only engineer who has ever
|
||
testified in federal court as to the meaning of the old
|
||
law. I have studied that law and its legislative history,
|
||
and discussed it with many legal scholars. I regularly lec
|
||
ture on this subject (see enclosed material), and I am one
|
||
of the founders and the first president of the Communica
|
||
tions Security Association.
|
||
|
||
I am not a kook. I have no ax to grind.
|
||
|
||
My only reason for wanting to be heard is an honest desire
|
||
to present accurate and unbiased information so as to correct
|
||
a popular misconception as to the meaning of the current
|
||
law and to help to see that an effective new law is
|
||
enacted.
|
||
|
||
TAP DETECTION
|
||
In our July 1985 issue we carried a segment that stated, several
|
||
times, that there is no electronic instrument that can detect
|
||
even a simple tap.
|
||
That is a verity.
|
||
However, shortly after that item appeared we got a note from a
|
||
brash young man named Roger Tolces. Roger lectures the professor,
|
||
telling him he should find out what a TDR is.
|
||
Dear Roger: Sorry about that. This old head conducted detailed
|
||
TDR experiments with some other engineers and technicians some
|
||
years ago -- probably before you even got into this business. You
|
||
don't have to introduce Jim Ross to the TDR; he has tested it
|
||
against some very simple circuitry, and it cannot detect even a
|
||
simple tap.
|
||
Dear Reader: Please stay tuned. More on Roger Tolces and the TDR
|
||
and his intriguing tale about his experiences with the FBI in a
|
||
future issue.
|
||
Meantime, believe it: There is no electronic instrument that can
|
||
detect even a simple tap. We'll tap a phone line and beat Roger's
|
||
TDR one thousand times out of one thousand attempts to detect our
|
||
tap. (By the way Roger, why not take us up on our challenge to
|
||
create a better definition of a tap?)
|
||
|
||
FEEDBACK
|
||
Sometimes the feedback comes in wonderful quantities, and this
|
||
is one of those times. In addition to the letter about
|
||
photosensitive epilepsy, other items in recent issues have
|
||
triggered some of our readers to send us enlightening material.
|
||
First, many responses to our query, "Should we change the name
|
||
of this letter?" A few interesting names were suggested, but the
|
||
majority cast their votes for leaving the name the same. One
|
||
respondent wants us to stop using the YOGO dateline, but we're
|
||
not ready to even consider that yet. (By the way, do you know
|
||
what it means?) (It's your editors way of trying to make a point,
|
||
and he'll expound on that later.)
|
||
Our January issue mentioned an audio amplifier from radio shack
|
||
called the binaural amplifier, and that drew a response from one
|
||
of our regular anonymous straight-talking responders: "It's a
|
||
piece of ____!" We thank him for his explicitly stated evaluation
|
||
of this item. What's your opinion?
|
||
And then there was a piece about Youth Action News. Talk about
|
||
feedback! We now have TEN issues, going back to 1977. To our,
|
||
again anonymous, contributor we say, "Many Thanks. Your help is
|
||
really appreciated. With regard to Youth Action News, as we
|
||
stated in the first segment on this publication, we're leery of
|
||
material which uses words that are not defined. However, we
|
||
promise to give all of this a thorough reading and to report on
|
||
our opinion in a future issue.
|
||
|
||
HARASSING PHONE CALLS
|
||
Steve Barnhart tells us that there is a device called "Shriek
|
||
Circuit" which may have application in discouraging harassing
|
||
phone callers. It is supposed to send a powerful blast of sound
|
||
to deafen the caller. He hasn't tried it, and we haven't tried
|
||
it; so we're not recommending it. (As mentioned in an earlier
|
||
letter, we're quite certain that the sound level will not be
|
||
passed through the phone system undiminished.)
|
||
Steve says it is sold by Consumertronics, POD 537, Alamagordo,
|
||
NM 88310. If you buy one, please let us know how it works.
|
||
|
||
PHOTOSENSITIVE EPILEPSY
|
||
A short comment on this phenomenon in our last issue brought the
|
||
following response.
|
||
|
||
Dear Jim:
|
||
Always read your COMSEC LETTERS with great interest. Re the
|
||
February 1986 issue and specifically the paragraph titled
|
||
PHOTOSENSITIVE EPILEPSY, be aware that there was a tremendous
|
||
amount of research during the Vietnam war related to this
|
||
subject. When it was discovered that certain low frequency
|
||
(around 7.5 Hz) pulses could induce a petite or grand mal
|
||
seizure, the Army immediately began studying the possibilities.
|
||
After "Audiogenic Seizure Susceptibility Induced in Mice by Prior
|
||
Auditory Exposure," by K. R. Henry, Science, 158; 938-40,
|
||
11/17/67, the Pentagon classified all further research including
|
||
that on photogenic seizures.
|
||
And yes, it does cause some cancellation of our "scan rate" ..
|
||
whatever that happens to be in each individual living organism.
|
||
People get sick when strobes are used at low frequencies. Pilots
|
||
get seizures when landing single-engine aircraft to the west at
|
||
sunset because of the prop strobing. The reaction that folks have
|
||
to certain CAT scan machines like the magnetic resonance devices
|
||
is likely caused by the same problem. There was a report in the
|
||
spring of 1968 that the Army had a research group build a very
|
||
large oscillating disc several feet in diameter and driven by a
|
||
very powerful driver that put out about 160dBA at frequencies
|
||
under 10 Hz. A little like the effects of mustard gas with the
|
||
wind changing directions, the experiment ended with the
|
||
termination of every living organism in a 2000 square yard area.
|
||
So went that unconfirmed report.
|
||
|
||
All Best,
|
||
Bernard L. Krause, Ph.D.
|
||
|
||
Our thanks to Bernie Krause. It is detailed information like
|
||
this that makes it such a pleasure to write this newsletter. Not
|
||
only did he take the time to respond in detail, he also provided
|
||
references.
|
||
If you want to contact him, his address is: Audio Forensic
|
||
Center,
|
||
2631 Clay Street, San Francisco, CA 94115. 415-563-0202.
|
||
|
||
|
||
April, 1986
|
||
|
||
COMSEC ASSOCIATION
|
||
The officers of the association are:
|
||
President James A. Ross
|
||
1st VP Arnold Blumenthal
|
||
2nd VP Kenneth R. Taylor
|
||
VP Membership Paul Bowling
|
||
VP Finance E.T. Smith
|
||
|
||
At present there have been no local chapters organized but there
|
||
has been considerable interest from several areas in the country.
|
||
To assist in getting local chapters started, we'll send a XEROX
|
||
copy of the current membership list to anyone who inquires. (The
|
||
XEROX copy is the best we have to offer at the present time. The
|
||
list will be typeset again, and run in alpha and zip order; but
|
||
it will be some time before that is complete.)
|
||
|
||
Be prepared for some kind of a notice relating to dues. It looks
|
||
almost certain that we'll be taking advice from professionals in
|
||
the association business, and going to a standard membership year
|
||
with all memberships ending on December 31. If you have any great
|
||
ideas of how to implement such a program, please let us hear from
|
||
you.
|
||
|
||
Also, the board is working to revise the by-laws, and we expect
|
||
to have the new version ready for a vote by the membership in
|
||
time for our 1986 meeting in Washington.
|
||
|
||
Negotiations with Cahners Expositions to collaborate with them
|
||
on the show that they are putting on in NYC in October resulted
|
||
in no meeting of the minds. Therefore, we will not be exhibiting
|
||
at that show. (Probably just as well -- they chose to name it CCS
|
||
86, and we certainly can see some potential problems with that
|
||
name.)
|
||
|
||
Also in the works are changes in membership categories with some
|
||
corporate memberships open to companies in the trade, and some
|
||
affiliate memberships open to companies wishing to do business
|
||
with our members. If you have any ideas along this line, please
|
||
call either Paul Bowling (301-843-3809) or E.T. Smith
|
||
(703-533-8555).
|
||
|
||
If you have any ideas relating to the activities of the Comsec
|
||
Association, or ideas of benefits that we can arrange for our
|
||
members, please call either Paul or E.T. (numbers above). They
|
||
are both working very hard to expand our activities, benefits and
|
||
membership.
|
||
|
||
Since our inception we have used a service which provides
|
||
telephone answering and an address in Washington, DC. At present
|
||
ET Smith and Paul Bowling are looking for a way to establish a
|
||
semi-permanent address for the association without running up a
|
||
tremendous bill every month. Until they arrange the new address,
|
||
please use POB 3554, Frederick, MD 21701 for any inquiries.
|
||
|
||
Addresses and phone numbers for CSA board members:
|
||
Arnold Blumenthal PTN Publishing Company
|
||
101 Crossways Park West
|
||
Woodbury, NY 11797
|
||
516-496-8000
|
||
|
||
Paul Bowling National Investigative Services
|
||
5931 Michael Road
|
||
Waldorf, MD 20601
|
||
301-843-3809
|
||
|
||
James A. Ross Ross Engineering, Inc.
|
||
7906 Hope Valley Court
|
||
Adamstown, MD 21710
|
||
301-831-8400
|
||
|
||
E.T. Smith The Republic Group (Teltron)
|
||
5801 Lee Highway
|
||
Arlington, VA 22207
|
||
703-533-8555
|
||
|
||
Kenneth R. Taylor Target International Corp.
|
||
14839 NE 20th Avenue
|
||
North Miami, FL 33181
|
||
305-940-0035
|
||
|
||
PERSONAL (PERSONNEL) NOTES
|
||
There is a good strong possibility that your editor will be
|
||
moving to the Miami area to become the Director of the Target
|
||
International Corporation Security Academy. His business in the
|
||
Washington area is up for sale (all or part), and he plans to
|
||
continue editing the COMSEC LETTER after relocating to FL. We're
|
||
now looking for someone in the DC area to be the executive
|
||
director of the association.
|
||
Please note: CSA has been a cash-flow negative operation since
|
||
its inception. The need to hire someone means that the
|
||
Association will have to greatly expand its revenue in order to
|
||
be able to pay a decent salary. That means that we'll have to
|
||
start a major recruiting and fund raising campaign. Your ideas
|
||
and your help are needed.
|
||
|
||
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT OF 1985
|
||
In one of the first COMSEC LETTERS we ranted about an effort of
|
||
the federal government to try to solve a problem by passing a
|
||
law. Specifically, we said:
|
||
|
||
We object on principle because, in our lifetime, we have
|
||
watched legislators, time after time, try to legislate
|
||
the solution to a problem; and usually in the process
|
||
they create problems many times worse than the one they
|
||
were trying to solve. We give it as our fixed opinion
|
||
that there is a sickness in this land, the virulence of
|
||
which increases with proximity to the Capitol; and that
|
||
sickness is the ingrained belief that the federal govern
|
||
ment can legislate a solution to any problem.
|
||
|
||
Here in 1986 they are again trying to legislate a solution to a
|
||
problem. Because some people have just discovered that what is
|
||
broadcast by radio can be heard by anyone with the proper
|
||
receiving equipment, our legislators are trying to make it a
|
||
crime to listen to what has been transmitted on certain
|
||
frequencies. What hogwash!
|
||
In a meeting with a member of the Congressional Office of
|
||
Technology Assessment a short time ago, I protested that the law
|
||
would be clearly unenforceable and was told, "There are many laws
|
||
on the books which are not enforced." Of course I agree. However,
|
||
I take the position that every law that is not enforced tends to
|
||
create disrespect for all laws, and I am vehemently opposed to
|
||
the provi sions of the bill as it stands.
|
||
Many other folks have taken positions opposing the bill for many
|
||
different reasons, and we'll be presenting some of their comments
|
||
in future letters. You are invited to call or write with your
|
||
comments.
|
||
|
||
CALL FOR PAPERS
|
||
The deadline for abstracts is May 20, so you don't have much
|
||
time; but it sounds as though this will be an interesting
|
||
meeting. "Protecting Intellectual Property" is the title, and it
|
||
is being put on by Aerospace Computer Associates in December in
|
||
the Washington, DC area. Contact Steve Walker, technical
|
||
chairman, on 301-854-6889 for information on presenting a paper
|
||
during the conference. If you are interested in making a
|
||
presentation at the one- day tutorial which precedes the
|
||
conference, contact Chris Perry on 703-883-6235.
|
||
|
||
DEFINITION OF A TAP
|
||
Because there had been no responses to our challenge to create a
|
||
definition of a tap, we proposed the following definition in our
|
||
September '85 letter. (After all, many of us make good money
|
||
checking for taps; it seems reasonable that there should be a
|
||
definition of a tap.)
|
||
|
||
"Tap, n., v., ---n. The act or process or equipment used to
|
||
monitor and/or record the content of messages being trans
|
||
mitted over wires without degrading the quality of trans
|
||
mission or interfering with transmission in any way, and
|
||
especially without being detected. The product of a tap is
|
||
the content of messages being transmitted over wires.
|
||
---v.t. To perform the necessary steps to accomplish a
|
||
tap."
|
||
|
||
We followed our first effort at defining the word with the
|
||
follow
|
||
ing comments.
|
||
"N.B. Because most taps seem to have conversations between
|
||
humans as their objective, it has become common to think of taps
|
||
as having a product which is human voice conversations. (In fact,
|
||
to simplify terminology during the seminar we refer to listening
|
||
to microwave or satellite-borne telephone conversations as taps.)
|
||
Note that the definition above does not refer to voice
|
||
conversations between humans.
|
||
Anything being transmitted over wires can be tapped. That
|
||
means that data, Teletype, facsimile, etc. can be the product of
|
||
a tap. Also, keep in mind that the definition refersto anything
|
||
being transmitted over wires, and is not limited to baseband
|
||
transmissions. That means that modulated RF, CW, ICW, or any
|
||
transmission at any carrier frequency, unmodulated or modulated
|
||
using any type of modulation, is included in the definition.
|
||
So let's go critics. Have a shot at the definition of tap."
|
||
|
||
In response to our request for others to provide a definition,
|
||
W. Bonham C.P.I. C.I.I. of Wausau, WI sent us the following for
|
||
which we thank him sincerely:
|
||
|
||
"A tap would be the act, when an individual who has an
|
||
expectation of privacy sends or communicates over a wire or
|
||
other means of transmission any information which the
|
||
sender feels that they have an expectation of privacy with
|
||
and that any person who is not authorized intercepts this
|
||
communication by whatever means with the intent to solely
|
||
intercept without authorization would by prima facia evi
|
||
dence of committing this act. The definition of tapping
|
||
requires three elements; the first element being that the
|
||
communication from the sender was transmitted through or
|
||
over facilities that are normally used for generally trans
|
||
mitting any type of communication. These type are defined
|
||
as but not limited to telephone, telegraph, electric lines
|
||
and/or other lines of communication that are either pub
|
||
licly or privately owned. The second element would require
|
||
that the intercepter did in fact penetrate or infiltrate
|
||
these lines of communication gaining access to said private
|
||
communications regardless of whether these communications
|
||
were recorded or only orally intercepted. The third element
|
||
would require that the interceptor did in fact commit the
|
||
act described in paragraph two by whatever means."
|
||
|
||
Considering the number of people who read this letter, we're
|
||
really disappointed that Mr. Bonham is the only person who took
|
||
the trouble to make a contribution. We hope that his effort will
|
||
spur some other members to send in their ideas.
|
||
|
||
His definition leans toward what was called "elements of the
|
||
offense" if your ol' editor properly remembers some of what was
|
||
thrown at him in a couple of semesters of law class. Our
|
||
definition, on the other hand, tends to define the term from a
|
||
technical point of view. Your comments are actively solicited.
|
||
Congress has not defined a tap very well in our opinion, and our
|
||
own definition leaves in limbo the question of whether coaxial
|
||
cable is considered "wire", and further, what about wave guide?
|
||
|
||
|
||
May, 1986
|
||
|
||
ELECTRONIC PRIVACY ACT OF 1986
|
||
We've carried information and opinion on this act in earlier edi
|
||
tions, and we'll probably have something on it in every edition
|
||
until it is defeated or put into sensible form, or -- heaven
|
||
forbid -- passed into law.
|
||
This astounding law, among other things, would make it a crime
|
||
to listen to what has been broadcast by radio on certain
|
||
frequencies. The law cannot be enforced.
|
||
Those who wish to listen will be able to listen with essentially
|
||
zero chance of being detected in their "criminal" activity, and
|
||
no chance of being punished for engaging in their "criminal"
|
||
activity.
|
||
What then will the law accomplish?
|
||
1. It will serve to diminish respect for all laws. Every
|
||
unenforced law tends to diminish respect for all laws.
|
||
2. It will offer cellular communication sellers an oppor
|
||
tunity to take advantage of folks by allowing them to
|
||
assure their customers that their broadcast conversations
|
||
cannot be overheard because "there's a law against it".
|
||
3. It will mean that it will be possible for a person to
|
||
be accused of committing a crime if he operates a radio
|
||
a. without being aware that listening to what
|
||
has been broadcast on certain frequencies is a
|
||
"no-no", or
|
||
b. operates a radio that does not accurately
|
||
display the frequency tuned to, or
|
||
c. operates a radio that has poor selectivity,
|
||
or
|
||
d. operates a radio that has poor image rejec
|
||
tion, or
|
||
e. does anything that allows him to hear what
|
||
has been broadcast on the specified frequencies
|
||
(e.g., uses a spectrum analyzer or crystal set
|
||
or a TV on Channel 80 - 83, etc.).
|
||
(Of course, defenders of the bill will point out that
|
||
there are words in it relating to the "intent" of the
|
||
listener, but how does one prove a lack of "intent"?)
|
||
3. To those with any understanding of radio communica
|
||
tion, propagation, etc. it will make the legislators who
|
||
voted for it look very silly.
|
||
Yes, I agree that something should be done to modernize the
|
||
laws. Yes, we are entitled to protection from wholesale
|
||
eavesdropping by eager investigators. Yes, law enforcement
|
||
organizations with cause should be able to eavesdrop on suspects.
|
||
(ACLU ?) But making the mere listening to what has been
|
||
broadcast into a crime is ludicrous.
|
||
In fact, from here it looks like the beneficiaries of the
|
||
proposed new law are the salesmen for cellular phones, and some
|
||
very smart (but devious) law enforcement types who will be able
|
||
to snoop legally without fear of violating the law because they
|
||
built in some beautiful gaping loopholes.
|
||
More coming.
|
||
|
||
INFORMATION SOURCES
|
||
For books and training courses relating to telephones and
|
||
telephone systems, contact: abc Teletraining, Inc., POB 537,
|
||
Geneva, IL 60134. 312-879-9000.
|
||
Also, Teleconnect is offering specials on some of the
|
||
publications from Texas Instruments Learning Center. Contact
|
||
Teleconnect on 1-800-LIBRARY.
|
||
By the way, TILC no longer sells their "Understanding" series of
|
||
books. If you want to buy any of them, contact Howard W. Sams
|
||
Co., 4300 W 62nd St., Indianapolis, IN 46268. 800-426-SAMS. As
|
||
we've commented several times earlier, Understanding Telephone
|
||
Electronics is an excellent book for anyone intending to do any
|
||
work with telephones or telephone systems.
|
||
Washington Researchers Publishing offers an outstanding
|
||
newsletter, The Information Report. For a sample issue and
|
||
subscription information contact them at 2612 P St., Washington,
|
||
DC 20007. 202-333-3533.
|
||
Two catalogs featuring publications on a wide variety of
|
||
subjects just arrived. For books on scanning, SWL, cryptography,
|
||
eavesdropping, etc. contact CRB Research, POB 56, Farmingdale, NY
|
||
11725. For a selection aimed at prospective private eyes contact
|
||
Thomas Publications, POB 33244, Austin, TX 78764. (If you buy any
|
||
of their selections, we'd really appreciate your comments -- a
|
||
full length review, or just a few words.)
|
||
|
||
RADIO SHACK TO THE RESCUE (Thanks Joel!)
|
||
In doing countermeasures work one of the bugaboos that we have
|
||
faced from time to time is the problem of connecting our
|
||
telephone analyzer to a standard wall phone with modular
|
||
connectors. We've improvised several times --- using the Fluke
|
||
multimeter to make the voltage readings from terminals inside the
|
||
instrument, using an audio amplifier and a modular breakout cable
|
||
to make audio feedback tests, etc.
|
||
In short, it's meant a lot of extra work because there was no
|
||
simple way to hook up the analyzer in parallel with the phone and
|
||
the line.
|
||
Now comes Radio Shack to the rescue.
|
||
They just came out with a new product that we see a real need
|
||
for in countermeasures. It's called "duplex wall phone adapter"
|
||
(their part # 279-359), and it sells for $9.95. It provides a
|
||
standard modular jack in parallel with the telephone so that
|
||
Harry Homeowner can connect his telephone answering machine to
|
||
the phone line at the wall telephone. In our business, of course,
|
||
it can be used to connect the telephone analyzer to the phone and
|
||
phone line which should make life a whole lot easier when you are
|
||
trying to do standard tests with one of the commercially
|
||
available telephone analyzers.
|
||
By the way, we'd appreciate feedback from anyone who tries this
|
||
product. (Our first attempt was in front of a seminar group in a
|
||
rented meeting room in a motel, and we had difficulty in getting
|
||
the phone to connect to the adapter.)
|
||
|
||
INDUCTIVE PICKUP
|
||
The suction cup inductive pickup (for telephones) has many, many
|
||
drawbacks, and we've been asked many times for the source of a
|
||
better inductive pickup. Finally, we've found one. It is a larger
|
||
loop and fits around the earpiece of the telephone handset.
|
||
(We've not tested this one, but if it works like our old
|
||
faithful, you won't be disappointed.) $4.88 ea. P/N 1GSO174 from
|
||
Electronic Supermarket, POB 988, Lynnfield, MA 01940.
|
||
617-532-2323.
|
||
|
||
MODERN FOOLPROOF ELECTRONICS VS. OLD-FASHIONED SKULDUGGERY
|
||
This story comes from one of our readers who wishes to remain
|
||
anonymous so as to preclude any possibility of embarrassing his
|
||
client.
|
||
It seems that the client had purchased some "state-of-the-art"
|
||
electronic computing and cash registers for some bars that he
|
||
owns with the idea that the automatic electronic reporting by
|
||
each cash register to the computer would cut down to the minimum
|
||
the "shrinkage" he had been experiencing. Unfortunately, even
|
||
with the fancy system in place, simple arithmetic told him that
|
||
he still had some
|
||
unknown partners who were sharing revenue with him in his bars.
|
||
Enter the consultant who knows electronics and people. He walks
|
||
to
|
||
the cash register and unplugs the line to the computer, rings up
|
||
a
|
||
few sales, and replugs the line to the computer.
|
||
You guessed it. While the line was unplugged, no sales were
|
||
recorded, but the cash register worked normally. The scam was
|
||
simply
|
||
to unplug the line when the "sale" was the bartenders take.
|
||
That's all there is to it. Even the manufacturer's
|
||
representative
|
||
was not aware that it was so simple to beat the modern electronic
|
||
|
||
cash accounting system.
|
||
Live and learn.
|
||
|
||
EVALUATION COMMITTEE
|
||
One of the ideas of the founders of the COMSEC Association was
|
||
to
|
||
establish a data bank so that the qualifications, credibility,
|
||
etc.
|
||
of TSCM product and service vendors could be made available to
|
||
mem
|
||
bers and others. At present, Paul Bowling and E.T. Smith are
|
||
start
|
||
ing to put together the mechanics of such a system. Paul expects
|
||
to
|
||
have a computer bulletin board up and operating in about a month,
|
||
|
||
and ET is working to put together the details of a plan to
|
||
provide
|
||
listings of products and services for member companies.
|
||
If you have any equipment to donate, or any ideas about
|
||
corporate
|
||
membership benefits, fees, etc., contact Paul or ET.
|
||
Having just heard yet another horror story about an unqualified
|
||
and
|
||
unprincipled firm which collects in advance, but doesn't deliver,
|
||
|
||
we're more anxious than ever to start a COMSEC "Better Business
|
||
Bureau". In other words, a data bank of information on
|
||
submissions
|
||
to the COMSEC Association. If you've been ripped off, and can get
|
||
no
|
||
satisfaction from the ripper, send us the full information. We'll
|
||
|
||
contact the ripper to give him a chance to answer the complaint;
|
||
and
|
||
we'll make the entire file available to members for a nominal
|
||
fee.
|
||
|
||
YET ANOTHER WAY TO TAP A PHONE
|
||
This may sound far out, but it rings true to us because we had a
|
||
|
||
similar experience years ago in Florida. In our case, we had con
|
||
tracted with an answering service for them to pick up on our busi
|
||
|
||
ness line if we did not answer by the third ring. Worked great.
|
||
Never had to remember to turn on a machine or notify the service.
|
||
|
||
The only problem was that after we had cancelled the service, the
|
||
|
||
service did not cancel the line that they had ordered run to them
|
||
|
||
from the central office. The result was that we paid for years of
|
||
|
||
unwanted and unused service. The phone company refused to even
|
||
con
|
||
sider the fact that we had been unaware that someone else had
|
||
ordered service for us and neglected to cancel the service, and
|
||
we
|
||
were stuck with the bill -- no refund even considered.
|
||
The current information comes to us in a newsletter which
|
||
details
|
||
the same kind of overbilling, but for a completely different pur
|
||
pose.
|
||
Ted Gunderson, a former FBI agent in Los Angeles who is working
|
||
as a private investigator, contends that GTE took an order for
|
||
additional service (a pair connecting his line to an answering
|
||
service location) from someone else and billed him about $40 per
|
||
month for two years. He has received a refund from GTE, but GTE
|
||
refuses to let him know who placed the order. In other words, a
|
||
tap was on his line for two years, he paid for it, and he cannot
|
||
find out who ordered it or who was listening.
|
||
|
||
|
||
NEEDED FOR TESTING
|
||
We really want to test an old-fashioned AM wireless intercom,
|
||
but we don't know how to find one. Can you help?
|
||
While we're at it, we might as well mention that the COMSEC
|
||
Association is putting in for recognition as a 501 (c)(3)
|
||
corporation. What that means is that you'll be able to take a tax
|
||
deduction for contributions of cash or goods. (There are rules
|
||
and regulations,
|
||
and limits, etc. but nothing horrendous.) So you'll be able to
|
||
send
|
||
us your old books, surveillance receivers, spectrum analyzers,
|
||
func
|
||
tion generators, etc. and take a tax deduction for your contribu
|
||
tion.
|
||
|
||
READ ANY GOOD (BAD) BOOKS LATELY?
|
||
Why not send in a review of any book relating to communications
|
||
and/or information security. Help our members separate the wheat
|
||
from the chaff. Recommend the good ones and pan the bad ones.
|
||
Don't
|
||
leave the membership at the mercy of your ol' editor. They
|
||
deserve
|
||
opinions from more than one person.
|
||
Let us hear from you today!
|
||
|
||
QUESTION
|
||
It's 1986, YOGO + 2. Do you know where your (Telco) dollars go?
|
||
Did
|
||
you ever hear of "Telephone Pioneers of America"?
|
||
|
||
INFORMATION PLEASE
|
||
This first question is one that came up during our last seminar,
|
||
|
||
and leads to some other interesting questions, we think. Here
|
||
'tis:
|
||
Q. Do you know of any TEMPEST-type attacks against
|
||
non-government
|
||
targets?
|
||
That is the question, and we'd like to hear from you, if you
|
||
have
|
||
any information.
|
||
More questions along this line later.
|
||
Meantime, remember, we'd sure like to hear from you.
|
||
|
||
|
||
June, 1986
|
||
|
||
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT OF 1986
|
||
|
||
At the time that this is written we see nothing more important
|
||
to report on than this activity in Congress. We think it poses a
|
||
threat to basic freedom in this country, and we're actively
|
||
working to correct some of the strange provisions in this bill.
|
||
|
||
To give you some history: Congress decided that the old law
|
||
(sometimes called "Title III") needed to be updated, and worked
|
||
on drafting a new law. Companion bills were introduced in the
|
||
House and the Senate, worded identically. Unfortunately, they
|
||
were written as amendments to the old law. (What that means, in
|
||
the practical sense, is that outsiders like us [isn't it terrible
|
||
that we citizens are outsiders when it comes to writing the laws?
|
||
Whatever happened to the idea that government derives its power
|
||
to govern from the people?] have to write out the old law and
|
||
then substitute words and phrases as specified into the text of
|
||
the old law before we have a readable copy of the new law.
|
||
|
||
We were in the process of doing that in our computer when the
|
||
House bill was withdrawn, and another substituted in its place.
|
||
The new bill was reported out of committee with a 34 to 0 vote
|
||
and sent to the floor. There, less than one week later, it passed
|
||
by voice vote without debate or amendment.
|
||
|
||
Sound like a railroad job? We think so.
|
||
|
||
Calling our Congresslady and the committee resulted in our
|
||
receipt of a copy of the new bill, and -- you guessed it -- it is
|
||
not written out either. So here we are, spending the majority of
|
||
our time trying to make a living, and sandwiching in some
|
||
sessions to try to write out what they propose so we can study
|
||
it. Meantime, some of our understanding of the provisions of the
|
||
bill is dependent on what others say it says -- and that's a
|
||
scary situation. (See the segments in this letter "WHAT A
|
||
DIFFERENCE A WORD MAKES", and "CHOICE OF WORDS".)
|
||
|
||
So the house has passed the law and it is now up to the Senate
|
||
to pass its version. We're concerned, and one step that we've
|
||
taken is to write to each of the Senators. A copy of the letter
|
||
sent to Senator Mathias follows. (He heads the Senate committee
|
||
looking at this bill.) (Adaptations of this letter were sent to
|
||
all senators.
|
||
|
||
Dear Senator Mathias:
|
||
|
||
This is in reference to S.2575, Electronic Communications Privacy
|
||
Act of 1986.
|
||
|
||
First, I must point out that I am not a lobbyist and I stand to
|
||
gain nothing by any changes that you may make to this proposed
|
||
law. I am writing to every senator as a concerned citizen who has
|
||
some special knowledge of the technical area addressed by this
|
||
bill -- a citizen who is very concerned that the companion bill,
|
||
with its many serious faults, passed in the House of
|
||
Representatives without hearings and without debate.
|
||
|
||
The principal reason for my concern is that many of the
|
||
provisions of the new law would be patently unenforceable, and
|
||
every law that is not enforced tends to create disrespect for all
|
||
laws.
|
||
|
||
Also of major importance is the fact that the law tries to
|
||
overrule the laws of physics and, in that attempt, would make a
|
||
felony out of some common, ordinary activities.
|
||
|
||
Yes, the old communication privacy law should be updated. I
|
||
believe that I am the only engineer (BS, West Point; MSEE U. of
|
||
Illinois) who has testified as an expert in federal court as to
|
||
the meaning of the old law, and I am ready to shout from the
|
||
rooftops that the convoluted language of the old law is next to
|
||
impossible to interpret. I have spent many hours studying it and
|
||
its legislative history, discussing it with experts on the law,
|
||
and testifying in court as to its meaning; and I know that a new
|
||
law is badly needed.
|
||
|
||
However, we don't need a new law that uses even more convoluted
|
||
language, is largely unenforceable, contains loopholes and
|
||
loopbacks, ignores modern technology, uses outdated terminology,
|
||
and overall does not do what its framers said that they intended.
|
||
|
||
I am the president of the Communications Security Association,
|
||
but I am not writing as a spokesman for the association; I am
|
||
writing as a private citizen who is concerned. If the Senate
|
||
takes a deliberative posture and time thus becomes available, the
|
||
Comsec Association will take a position and offer expert
|
||
witnesses.
|
||
|
||
I urge you, Senator Mathias, to hold hearings on this bill. I am
|
||
prepared to testify, and I believe that you should contact the
|
||
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers for other
|
||
technical experts with appropriate experience. (Each engineer to
|
||
whom I have mentioned provisions of the bill has responded first
|
||
with laughter, and then with incredulity that our legislators
|
||
could even seriously consider passing a law that attempts to
|
||
overrule the laws of physics.)
|
||
|
||
Please take action. It is vitally important.
|
||
|
||
|
||
WHAT A DIFFERENCE A WORD MAKES, TWO EXAMPLES
|
||
|
||
FIRST EXAMPLE
|
||
|
||
In the law that Congress is trying to update, the words which
|
||
define interception of communication are "aural acquisition of
|
||
the contents" of the communication. What that combination of
|
||
words means, in your editor's opinion, is that somebody heard the
|
||
contents of the communication. After all, "aural" refers to the
|
||
hearing mechanism in our heads (or for that matter to the hearing
|
||
mechanisms in the heads of animals, reptiles, fish, fowl, etc.),
|
||
and achieving "aural acquisition" seems to be simply a strange
|
||
way to say "hear".
|
||
In any event, the law defines interception differently than the
|
||
dictionary does, and is very precise in its definition.
|
||
So now come various groups and organizations and people who take
|
||
it upon themselves to "explain" to us unwashed masses exactly
|
||
what the law means. And what do they tell us it means? Why they
|
||
say that the law says that interception means the "acquisition of
|
||
the content" of the communication.
|
||
Hey! What happened to "aural" which refers to human hearing.
|
||
Are they deliberately trying to confuse us?
|
||
In this first example of "WHAT A DIFFERENCE A WORD MAKES" one
|
||
key word has been left out and the entire meaning of the law has
|
||
been significantly altered. Instead of saying that interception
|
||
means hearing the content of the communication, people are saying
|
||
that the old law says that interception means acquisition of the
|
||
content -- and there is a world of difference.
|
||
At least one judge in Virginia is not confused. The Virginia law
|
||
is written with the same definition of interception, and in a
|
||
case in which there was incontrovertible evidence that private
|
||
conversations had been recorded he ruled that there had been no
|
||
interception because there was no evidence that anyone had ever
|
||
listened to what had been recorded on the tape.
|
||
C'mon you experts. The law does not define intercept as
|
||
"acquisition of the contents"; it defines it as hearing what has
|
||
been transmitted, "aural acquisition of the contents". Any other
|
||
interpretation is perverting the law as written.
|
||
|
||
SECOND EXAMPLE
|
||
|
||
The second example of the awful consequences of leaving out one
|
||
single word relates to the study, widely quoted, which was done
|
||
for Congress by their Office of Technology Assessment. In that
|
||
report, in reference to the protection of communications afforded
|
||
by the old law, OTA uses these words: "...communications...other
|
||
than voice are not clearly protected."
|
||
So how is that translated? Did the translation of the
|
||
translation change the meaning?
|
||
It sure did! People (including Senator Mathias) who use that
|
||
report as their authority are now saying that the old law
|
||
protects only voice communications. It seems that they decided
|
||
that the word "clearly" was too limiting so they just left it out
|
||
when they interpreted OTA's interpretation for us.
|
||
What a difference a word makes!
|
||
Does the old law protect only voice communications? If you think
|
||
so, you're wrong. The old law does not refer only to voice
|
||
communications. In fact, the word "voice" is not even used in the
|
||
old law!
|
||
That law prohibits interception (defined as aural acquisition)
|
||
of the contents of "oral and wire communications".
|
||
In fact, goodbuddy, if you study the old law carefully, you'll
|
||
come to the conclusion that it doesn't clearly protect voice
|
||
communications as well as not clearly protecting other than voice
|
||
communications. (More later.)
|
||
|
||
CHOICE OF WORDS
|
||
Throughout the proposed law and in all references to these laws
|
||
our Congressmen have used the word "protection" when they are
|
||
referring to the legislated prohibitions against eavesdropping on
|
||
conversations. It is as though they really believe that they can
|
||
legislate protection.
|
||
If you believe that legislation can "protect" your broadcast
|
||
conversations from being overheard, we have an experiment for you
|
||
-- and any congressman who thinks he has such power.
|
||
First let Congress pass a law which prohibits piranha fish from
|
||
biting our citizens. Let's make it a felony.
|
||
Then you, or your congressman friend, go jump in a river full of
|
||
piranhas.
|
||
Let me know how you make out.
|
||
|
||
END NOTE
|
||
Thanks to our many contributors; your material will appear soon.
|
||
|
||
July/August, 1986
|
||
|
||
The July/August issue of ComSec Letter were never published due
|
||
to the incapacity of the Ross family caused by an automobile
|
||
wreck.
|
||
|
||
|
||
September, 1986
|
||
|
||
Dear CSA Member:
|
||
|
||
This will probably be the shortest COMSEC LETTER that you
|
||
will ever receive -- and I hope that it will be the only one
|
||
mailed out of order.
|
||
|
||
The situation is that the Congress is about to create what I
|
||
consider to be a very silly law which will benefit only those who
|
||
are interested in skulduggery, and will create a false sense of
|
||
security for the masses. I am referring, of course, to the
|
||
Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986.
|
||
|
||
I have written about this in earlier editions, and I expect
|
||
to recount my initiation into personal efforts to influence
|
||
legislation in future editions; but, for now, I am hastily trying
|
||
to pass along one important thought and one administrative
|
||
message:
|
||
|
||
1. Enclosed is a copy of a recent letter by the
|
||
Association of North American Radio Clubs. Its message is simple.
|
||
Contact your Senator to urge him to oppose legislation which
|
||
would create an unenforceable law -- and make criminals out of
|
||
people who listen to what has been broadcast in the clear on
|
||
certain frequencies. It may already be too late, but we have to
|
||
try to get Congress to think before they act. We have many
|
||
members in the COMSEC Association who are experts on
|
||
communications security, and they should have a chance to be
|
||
heard.
|
||
|
||
2. This letter (September) is being mailed before the
|
||
July/August edition because we had a choice of spending our time
|
||
to finish the July/August letter or to work at trying to stop, or
|
||
at least patch up, the impending law and we decided that the
|
||
latter was more important. The July/August letter is in the works
|
||
and will be coming to you soon.
|
||
|
||
Regards,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Jim Ross
|
||
|
||
|
||
October, 1986
|
||
|
||
A PERSONAL NOTE FROM YOUR EDITOR
|
||
|
||
Dear Friend,
|
||
On September 12 Lynne and I were in a serious automobile wreck
|
||
which left her with a broken neck. She has been a real champion
|
||
throughout this ordeal, and at the time of this writing she is in
|
||
a Philadelphia collar and at home. The prognosis is for a
|
||
complete recovery eventually, and for that we thank God.
|
||
Ken Taylor and Paul Bowling filled in for us at the ASIS show in
|
||
New Orleans and Doug Kelly and Ken took care of our seminar
|
||
following the ASIS show. Our youngest daughter, Marilyn, has been
|
||
helping with some of the business work that Lynne used to do.
|
||
Of course, many things have been postponed, and we apologize for
|
||
any problems that our tardiness may have caused.
|
||
|
||
Sincerely,
|
||
Jim Ross
|
||
|
||
|
||
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT OF 1986
|
||
|
||
Well, they passed it. Something like 25 seconds was all it took
|
||
"the greatest deliberative body in the world" to pass this
|
||
abomination.
|
||
We'll have much more information on this in future issues. For
|
||
now let's quote from a Monitoring Times editorial by Bob Grove:
|
||
"Unenforceable, ill-advised and self-contradictory, this mockery
|
||
of the judicial process should never have seen the light of day."
|
||
(More information on the COMSEC Association's position on a
|
||
related matter is carried in the segment of this letter entitled
|
||
"FCC Letter".)
|
||
|
||
|
||
COMSEC ASSOCIATION PLANS
|
||
|
||
Paul Bowling has set up the COMSEC Association's computer
|
||
bulletin board, and you are invited to call in. The number is
|
||
301-843-9266.
|
||
|
||
Paul is also spending many hours of his own time to try to
|
||
develop programs for members of the association. Details coming.
|
||
|
||
This letter is very late, but two more letters are in the works
|
||
in the computer so we hope to be all caught up by the end of
|
||
December.
|
||
|
||
By the way, the letter should begin to look much sharper soon.
|
||
Jim Ross's business has a laser printer on order, so the COMSEC
|
||
Letter will soon have an almost typeset look. Plans are also
|
||
underway to take ads in the letter and in the membership list
|
||
publication. Contact Paul Bowling for details.
|
||
|
||
|
||
JOB OPENING
|
||
|
||
We have been advised of a job opening in New England for someone
|
||
with heavy countermeasures experience. It will require about 20%
|
||
travel nationally and internationally. Good salary and benefits.
|
||
Contact Jim Ross for more details and the name & number of the
|
||
headhunter.
|
||
|
||
|
||
LETTER TO THE FCC
|
||
|
||
On 11-3-86 the following letter was mailed to the Federal
|
||
Communications Commission in support of a petition by the
|
||
Washington Legal Foundation to require manufacturers of
|
||
radiotelephone to label their products to warn users that their
|
||
conversations can be overheard.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
William Tricarico
|
||
Office of the Secretary
|
||
Federal Communications Commission
|
||
1919 M St
|
||
Washington, DC 20554
|
||
|
||
RE RM 5577
|
||
|
||
Gentlemen:
|
||
|
||
This association, composed of hundreds of professionals in the
|
||
field of communications security, heartily favors requiring
|
||
manufacturers of radios used in telephone service to permanently
|
||
label such equipment to warn users that their conversations can
|
||
be easily overheard.
|
||
|
||
Something must be done to counter the false sense of security
|
||
which the manufacturers and the congress have created. Radio
|
||
transmissions can easily be heard by anyone, and no man-made laws
|
||
will be able to change that fact.
|
||
|
||
The Washington Legal Foundation should be commended for taking
|
||
the initiative to create the petition to require privacy warning
|
||
labels.
|
||
|
||
If there is any question regarding this, I can be reached at my
|
||
office, 301-831-8400.
|
||
|
||
Very truly yours,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
James A. Ross
|
||
President
|
||
|
||
cc: Membership
|
||
Secretary, Washington Legal Foundation
|
||
Bob Horvitz, Association of North American Radio Clubs
|
||
|
||
|
||
November, 1986
|
||
|
||
QUESTION FOR COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT
|
||
|
||
In an article regarding major changes in U.S. communications
|
||
policy in Communications Consultant, a magazine for people who
|
||
earn their living performing as consultants on communications
|
||
matters, Julia King wrote: "Some of them, such as the endorsement
|
||
of the long-sought-after communications privacy law, have proved
|
||
beneficial to both consultants and their clients."
|
||
Our question for her: Just how has this new law proven
|
||
beneficial to either consultants or their clients? Or, do you
|
||
expect that it will become beneficial some day? If so, how?
|
||
The one benefit that we see is a long-term one; the definition
|
||
of "interception" has been improved. Now it is defined as the
|
||
acquisition of the contents of a message, rather than as the
|
||
aural acquisition of the content. After the new law becomes
|
||
effective next year this change should make it easier for judges
|
||
to understand, and should result in making the law stronger.
|
||
Other than that, we believe that the only beneficiaries of the
|
||
new law are those sellers who wish to take advantage of buyers by
|
||
deceiving them with regard to the security of the communications
|
||
equipment that they are touting.
|
||
Law enforcement is a loser. They'll now have to get a court
|
||
order to use a DNR.
|
||
(Incidentally, our language is a loser -- the lawmakers insisted
|
||
on using an 1890's term, pen register, when "updating" the old
|
||
law instead of the modern term dialed number recorder or DNR.)
|
||
Communications users are losers. They'll be more than ever
|
||
convinced that any telephone is a secure means of communication.
|
||
Some of us who make our living doing countermeasures could be
|
||
big losers. We could get into trouble for conscientiously doing
|
||
our jobs. Can't you just hear us explaining to the senator that
|
||
we can't check that suspicious emanation from his office because
|
||
it is on one of the frequencies that the senator has voted to
|
||
make it a crime to listen to!
|
||
A hand-addressed copy of this newsletter is being mailed to
|
||
Julia King at Communications Consultant. She, or anyone from this
|
||
magazine is invited to make a presentation at COMSEC EXPO '87.
|
||
You'll have a chance to expound on your views in front of a
|
||
knowledgeable audience. Let us hear from you.
|
||
|
||
|
||
COMSEC EXPO '87
|
||
|
||
Due to circumstances beyond our control, we were not able to
|
||
schedule our second COMSEC EXPO during 1986. At present, we are
|
||
in the final stages of planning COMSEC EXPO '87 with the location
|
||
to be the Washington, DC area, and the dates to be late in 1987.
|
||
You will be advised.
|
||
|
||
|
||
FROM OUR READERS
|
||
|
||
Many, many, submissions from readers have been received. Some
|
||
date back many months. If you have mailed in some material, don't
|
||
despair of ever seeing it. None has been lost. We just haven't
|
||
been able to get around to including all of the stories, ideas,
|
||
information, etc. Hang in!
|
||
For now, we'll pass along just one item which we received during
|
||
the past month. Several members sent us annotated copies of a
|
||
letter that had been sent out by a firm in Port Chester, NY. The
|
||
organization seems to have many identities, so to keep from being
|
||
sued for misrepresentation, we'll include the full description.
|
||
The letter was signed over this signature block:
|
||
Marsha Pearl, Mgd. Coordinator
|
||
PROTECTION CONNECTION, a Property of
|
||
CCS Counter Spy Shop.
|
||
The letterhead says:
|
||
The Counterspy Shop
|
||
A Division of CCS Communications Control Inc.
|
||
No, we don't know what "Mgd." means; but the CCS initials sure
|
||
are familiar. Anyway, the essence of the letter is a request for
|
||
submission of products for them to sell and includes the
|
||
following in its listing of what you should submit: "...the
|
||
merchandise itself for testing, ..."
|
||
Now that, to us, is a very interesting offer. CCS, the master of
|
||
advertising claims, now plans to test equipment.
|
||
But wait! Maybe we are making an incorrect assumption. Your
|
||
editor, being an engineer, assumes that the purpose of the
|
||
testing would be to determine whether the items tested actually
|
||
do what their manufacturers say they do. However, that may be a
|
||
totally erroneous assumption.
|
||
Well, we have a CCS employee on the mailing list. Maybe she'll
|
||
enlighten us as to exactly what it is that CCS proposes to test
|
||
for. If they plan to test for performance as claimed in
|
||
advertising, we're certain that many of our members can suggest
|
||
many CCS products to be tested.
|
||
|
||
|
||
CALL FOR PAPERS
|
||
Although the dates and place are not yet firm, we're asking
|
||
everyone who wishes to present information on modern
|
||
communications and information security to notify the planning
|
||
committee as soon as possible. Send a short abstract, along with
|
||
some biographical information, to:
|
||
COMSEC EXPO '87 Planning Committee
|
||
POB 3554
|
||
Frederick, MD 21701
|
||
If you have any questions, you may call 301-874-5311, but please
|
||
be advised that that number is not answered on a full-time basis
|
||
so keep trying.
|
||
|
||
|
||
ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE
|
||
This letter will, we hope, be the last of the 2-page letters. We
|
||
have a mountain of backlogged notes for the letter and some very
|
||
important information to convey, and we plan to start working out
|
||
of this backlogged condition with all our might. In the next
|
||
issue we'll again carry a listing of coming events -- we've been
|
||
so far behind schedule that it had to be dropped temporarily.
|
||
Please send in any announcements of meetings etc. in this field.
|
||
|
||
December, 1986
|
||
|
||
ECPA
|
||
The Electronic Communication Privacy Act is now the law of the
|
||
land. It may have some parts which improve upon the old law, but
|
||
it definitely has some provisions which are downright stupid. It
|
||
is largely unenforceable, and probably will be used by the
|
||
sellers of cellular phones to bamboozle their prospective
|
||
customers by creating a false sense of security -- "No one can
|
||
listen to your calls; it's against the law." Of course, anyone
|
||
who wants to listen will listen. There is no chance that his
|
||
"crime" will be detected; and the Justice Department has already
|
||
said that they do not intend to try to enforce the law.
|
||
Its drafters said they had to "update" the old law to "protect"
|
||
modern communications that were overlooked in the old law. So
|
||
they used terminology that was outdated even before the old law
|
||
was passed. They dropped some of the words -- that they never did
|
||
understand -- that were used in the old law in favor of some
|
||
other words -- that they obviously don't understand.
|
||
More on ECPA, much more, coming.
|
||
Also, along the same line, we have an essay in preparation on
|
||
the dangers inherent in writing to impress rather than to
|
||
communicate, and using words you don't understand in the process.
|
||
|
||
|
||
COMSEC EXPO '87
|
||
Our second annual meeting is now being planned for Washington,
|
||
DC in the fall of '87. This time we're doing it all ourselves,
|
||
and we guarantee you that we'll have a real opportunity for
|
||
learning what's new and what's going on.
|
||
If you want to appear on a panel, or give a presentation, or
|
||
sell booth space, or work as a volunteer in some capacity,
|
||
contact your editor on 301-831-8400. If you are interested in
|
||
exhibiting, contact the conference coordinator, Shirley Henschel,
|
||
at Expo Headquarters: 9306 Wire Avenue Suite 701, Silver Spring,
|
||
MD 20901. Phone: 301-588-3929.
|
||
At this time it looks like there will be three days of panels,
|
||
seminars, and presentations; three days of exhibits, and one half
|
||
day of a meeting of the members of the COMSEC Association. We're
|
||
planning to allow plenty of time for visiting the exhibits so
|
||
that it will be possible to attend all of the conference sessions
|
||
and also see everything in the exhibit hall.
|
||
|
||
|
||
CALENDAR
|
||
Starting with the January issue we'll be inserting an extra
|
||
sheet into each mailing of the COMSEC LETTER to list all of the
|
||
educational activities, shows, etc that might be of interest to
|
||
members. Bob Bryant, Michael Melhorne, Jim Ross, and anybody else
|
||
who schedules many activities throughout the year will be handled
|
||
in a special section outside the overall chronological listing.
|
||
If you are planning an event that you think might interest our
|
||
members, send your releases. We have a qualified readership.
|
||
For this issue we're going to list only one event -- a very
|
||
special one that deserves your attention -- and that is:
|
||
Carnahan Conference on Security Technology
|
||
Hyatt Regency-Ravina, Atlanta, GA
|
||
July 15-17, 1987
|
||
Contact: Juanita B. Graves, Conference Coordinator
|
||
606-257-3973
|
||
Special Note. This year, for the first time, the Carnahan
|
||
Conference will include exhibits. Contact Juanita for full
|
||
information.
|
||
|
||
|
||
MORE MODERN TELCO SERVICE FROM SOUTH CENTRAL BELL
|
||
SCB has recently announced that it will offer, on a trial basis,
|
||
a new service called "call rejection". The trial will take place
|
||
in Natchez, Mississippi, and will cost subscribers $2.00/month.
|
||
To use the service, the subscriber punches in a code using a
|
||
DTMF pad, and records a message saying that he refuses to take
|
||
any calls from the specified number. Each customer is limited to
|
||
a total of six numbers from which he refuses to take calls.
|
||
Also being offered during the test are calling number
|
||
identification, distinctive ringing and selected call
|
||
forwarding -- again, limited to a total of six selected numbers.
|
||
Our hats are off to SCB. Again, they are offering modern
|
||
services to their customers.
|
||
|
||
|
||
COMSEC ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN
|
||
Soon we will have completed much of the organizing work that has
|
||
been in the works, and we'll have various committees named and
|
||
defined. We'll be looking for some self-starters who are able to
|
||
work with a minimum of supervision to chair and man (woman?)
|
||
various committees. Look for announcements in the COMSEC LETTER.
|
||
|
||
|
||
DESKTOP PUBLISHING
|
||
Well, your editor finally bit the bullet and bought a laser
|
||
printer so this letter should look a tad better in the future.
|
||
Right now, we're able only to put out print in one typestyle, but
|
||
as we learn to master the features (and buy some more software)
|
||
we'll be able to dress up the letter so it looks almost
|
||
professionally typeset. (By the way, if you have experience with
|
||
a QMS KISS laser printer and can steer us to some helpful
|
||
software, please call or write.)
|
||
It is our plan to expand this letter during 1987, we hope to a
|
||
full magazine with ads, articles, editorials, and more of what
|
||
you have been reading in the COMSEC LETTER over the years.
|
||
|
||
|
||
NEW FEATURE
|
||
The COMSEC LETTER has had many submissions from readers and
|
||
we've just not had the time to make use of them. One of the first
|
||
was from Roger Tolces and contained the excellent suggestion that
|
||
we start a regular feature called "Bugs and Taps Found". (Of
|
||
course, if he had been reading the letters, he'd have known that
|
||
we had already carried several "reports from the field".) Roger
|
||
included a real-life story that we'll be passing along soon.
|
||
Also, Gerry Linton of Calgary has sent along some information
|
||
which will appear under that (or a similar) heading.
|
||
For this issue, however, our member-supplied material is a book
|
||
review by Dave Mann. We're sure that you'll find it interesting.
|
||
If you have submitted information, or asked questions; please
|
||
bear with us. The planned expansion of this letter will allow for
|
||
much more material each month, and we'll start working our way
|
||
through the backlog of material.
|
||
|
||
|
||
BOOK(LET) REVIEW, by Dave Mann
|
||
|
||
Review of The Business of Spying prepared and distributed by
|
||
Sherwood Communications Associates.
|
||
|
||
"The Business of Spying" was handed to me as I edged my way
|
||
around the displays at the last COMSEC Expo in Washington, DC.
|
||
At first, I thought it was just another exhibition giveaway,
|
||
worth about what those plastic carrying bags go for. Cynical old
|
||
investigator, I figured nobody gives anything up for free. So
|
||
much for my pessimistic view of the industry. "The Business of
|
||
Spying" is an excellent piece of work and makes me wish I had
|
||
talked Sherwood out of the rest of the booklets!
|
||
"The Business of Spying" is aimed at the private sector,
|
||
industrial security arena. It covers a very accurate description
|
||
of a "private spy" and makes certain the reader understands a
|
||
very important point about the private spy: He (or she) rarely
|
||
steals information where the boss can detect it, he memorizes or
|
||
records it (usually on the uncontrolled copier machine) so that
|
||
you will never know you've been had. Good point and bravo for
|
||
Sherwood that they make the point up front. The primary areas
|
||
where private spies operate, external threats (visitors,
|
||
customers), trash collection and reverse engineering are all
|
||
mentioned in the handout just in case you have been living in a
|
||
cave for the past ten years and didn't know Trash Collection is
|
||
one of the most lucrative means of getting inside your company's
|
||
knickers.
|
||
The "Family Tree of Eavesdropping Devices" and "Computer
|
||
Network Vulnerabilities" were included as a means to
|
||
diagrammatically display all the ways you can be had. My only
|
||
complaint is that the Computer Network diagram was taken from the
|
||
famous "Ware Report" on Computer Security (formally DoD
|
||
CONFIDENTIAL), but now a classic in its own time. I think ol'
|
||
Doc Ware should have been given credit someplace.
|
||
Recommendation: Contact Sherwood Communications Associates,
|
||
1310 Industrial Highway, Southampton, PA 18966 and talk to George
|
||
Russell.
|
||
|
||
|
||
COMSEC ASSOCIATION BULLETIN BOARD (BBS)
|
||
C'mon in! Dial up our association's bulletin board. Paul Bowling
|
||
has done a marvelous job in setting it up and keeping it running.
|
||
This has been a purely voluntary effort on his part, and has
|
||
immensely added to our ability to communicate with members and
|
||
potential members. He has provided all of the equipment involved
|
||
and the phone line as well. Let's use the board, encourage others
|
||
to do so, and strengthen our association. Dial up the board and
|
||
delve into its information. You'll be glad you did. 301-843-9266.
|
||
|
||
|
||
ON WORDS
|
||
Your editor tries to always use the right word. In fact, he's a
|
||
stickler for precise language. (One of our readers has even
|
||
commented that he is not very interested in the subject matter,
|
||
but he reads the letter because "it is written in something which
|
||
closely approaches English." From him that's a compliment -- even
|
||
without the inclusion of "closely".)
|
||
In any event, it's time again to comment on how members of the
|
||
fourth estate mangle communications by using the wrong words.
|
||
What comes to mind first is the fact that some of the press
|
||
coverage of the Voyager adventure has used the word ungainly in
|
||
describing that beautiful, graceful, svelte flying machine. Now
|
||
maybe it's unconventional in design -- different maybe; but it is
|
||
definitely not ungainly.
|
||
Don't you think that people who earn their living by using words
|
||
should make an extra effort to use the correct words? That
|
||
thought surfaces every time a reporter uses the word tarmac
|
||
incorrectly. When they are describing an airplane taxiing, they
|
||
invariably say it is taxiing "on the tarmac". Truth is, almost
|
||
100% of the time it is taxiing on concrete, not tarmacadam. They
|
||
just never bothered to learn that some of the airport's paved
|
||
surface is called runway, some taxiway, and some apron. They
|
||
never bothered to learn the meaning of the word tarmac. They
|
||
heard it used and simply copied from another unlearned reporter.
|
||
Oh well.
|
||
|
||
|
||
A PERSONAL MESSAGE FROM YOUR EDITOR (AND HIS WIFE!)
|
||
Since sending out the letter which included the message about
|
||
our automobile wreck and Lynne's injuries, we have received many,
|
||
many calls and notes.
|
||
From both of us, thank you for your concern, for your prayers,
|
||
and for your understanding our lack of asperity in doing the
|
||
things that are normal.
|
||
On the positive side, and most important, Lynne is recovering
|
||
nicely, and the prognosis is for eventual full recovery. She
|
||
sends her thanks.
|
||
On the negative side, boy, has the work piled up! Are we behind!
|
||
(But as Chuck Case says, "It's better to be a little behind than
|
||
a big one.") Seriously, we have fallen far behind in our work,
|
||
but we are trying hard to catch up. Please, if you have written
|
||
or called and not had a response, don't be bashful; call again.
|
||
We won't be offended, and we'll be glad to hear from you.
|
||
|