TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Jun 94 22:38:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 307 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson USACM Calls for Clipper Withdrawal (Association For Computing Machinery) ACM Releases Crypto Study (Association For Computing Machinery) BOC Name Changes (was Re: Bell Atlantic Marketing) (Garrett Wollman) Cheapest Cellular Carrier in NYC? (krazykev@panix.com) Information Wanted on TDD Devices (Arieh Cimet) Re: KERMIT Through an Intermediate Telnet Node? How? (James Carlson) Re: KERMIT Through an Intermediate Telnet Node? How? (Kenneth J. Morrill) Re: Bilingual Telephone Numbers? (Jeff Bamford) Re: Bilingual Telephone Numbers? (John Harris) Re: AT&T, Paris and Freedom (Stephen Melvin) Re: Bidding War For - Western Union ?! (Daryl Gibson) Re: Cellular Phones and Lightning (Tobin M. Creek) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and GEnie. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 16:35:37 +0000 From: US ACM, DC Office Subject: USACM Calls for Clipper Withdrawal U S A C M Association for Computing Machinery, U.S. Public Policy Committee * PRESS RELEASE * Thursday, June 30, 1994 Contact: Barbara Simons (408) 463-5661, simons@acm.org (e-mail) Jim Horning (415) 853-2216, horning@src.dec.com (e-mail) Rob Kling (714) 856-5955, kling@ics.uci.edu (e-mail) COMPUTER POLICY COMMITTEE CALLS FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CLIPPER COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY "TOO IMPORTANT" FOR SECRET DECISION-MAKING WASHINGTON, DC The public policy arm of the oldest and largest international computing society today urged the White House to withdraw the controversial "Clipper Chip" encryption proposal. Noting that the "security and privacy of electronic communications are vital to the development of national and international information infrastructures," the Association for Computing Machinery's U.S. Public Policy Committee (USACM) added its voice to the growing debate over encryption and privacy policy. In a position statement released at a press conference on Capitol Hill, the USACM said that "communications security is too important to be left to secret processes and classified algorithms." The Clipper technology was developed by the National Security Agency, which classified the cryptographic algorithm that underlies the encryption device. The USACM believes that Clipper "will put U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage in the global market and will adversely affect technological development within the United States." The technology has been championed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the NSA, which claim that "non-escrowed" encryption technology threatens law enforcement and national security. "As a body concerned with the development of government technology policy, USACM is troubled by the process that gave rise to the Clipper initiative," said Dr. Barbara Simons, a computer scientist with IBM who chairs the USACM. "It is vitally important that privacy protections for our communications networks be developed openly and with full public participation." The USACM position statement was issued after completion of a comprehensive study of cryptography policy sponsored by the ACM (see companion release). The study, "Codes, Keys and Conflicts: Issues in U.S Crypto Policy," was prepared by a panel of experts representing various constituencies involved in the debate over encryption. The ACM, founded in 1947, is a 85,000 member non-profit educational and scientific society dedicated to the development and use of information technology, and to addressing the impact of that technology on the world's major social challenges. USACM was created by ACM to provide a means for presenting and discussing technological issues to and with U.S. policymakers and the general public. For further information on USACM, please call (202) 298- 0842. ============================================================= USACM Position on the Escrowed Encryption Standard The ACM study "Codes, Keys and Conflicts: Issues in U.S Crypto Policy" sets forth the complex technical and social issues underlying the current debate over widespread use of encryption. The importance of encryption, and the need for appropriate policies, will increase as networked communication grows. Security and privacy of electronic communications are vital to the development of national and international information infrastructures. The Clipper Chip, or "Escrowed Encryption Standard" (EES) Initiative, raises fundamental policy issues that must be fully addressed and publicly debated. After reviewing the ACM study, which provides a balanced discussion of the issues, the U.S. Public Policy Committee of ACM (USACM) makes the following recommendations. 1. The USACM supports the development of public policies and technical standards for communications security in open forums in which all stakeholders -- government, industry, and the public -- participate. Because we are moving rapidly to open networks, a prerequisite for the success of those networks must be standards for which there is widespread consensus, including international acceptance. The USACM believes that communications security is too important to be left to secret processes and classified algorithms. We support the principles underlying the Computer Security Act of 1987, in which Congress expressed its preference for the development of open and unclassified security standards. 2. The USACM recommends that any encryption standard adopted by the U.S. government not place U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage in the global market or adversely affect technological development within the United States. Few other nations are likely to adopt a standard that includes a classified algorithm and keys escrowed with the U.S. government. 3. The USACM supports changes in the process of developing Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) employed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This process is currently predicated on the use of such standards solely to support Federal procurement. Increasingly, the standards set through the FIPS process directly affect non-federal organizations and the public at large. In the case of the EES, the vast majority of comments solicited by NIST opposed the standard, but were openly ignored. The USACM recommends that the standards process be placed under the Administrative Procedures Act so that citizens may have the same opportunity to challenge government actions in the area of information processing standards as they do in other important aspects of Federal agency policy making. 4. The USACM urges the Administration at this point to withdraw the Clipper Chip proposal and to begin an open and public review of encryption policy. The escrowed encryption initiative raises vital issues of privacy, law enforcement, competitiveness and scientific innovation that must be openly discussed. 5. The USACM reaffirms its support for privacy protection and urges the administration to encourage the development of technologies and institutional practices that will provide real privacy for future users of the National Information Infrastructure. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 16:34:47 +0000 From: "US ACM, DC Office" Subject: ACM Releases Crypto Study Association for Computing Machinery PRESS RELEASE Thursday, June 30, 1994 Contact: Joseph DeBlasi, ACM Executive Director (212) 869-7440 Dr. Stephen Kent, Panel Chair (617) 873-3988 Dr. Susan Landau, Panel Staff (413) 545-0263 COMPUTING SOCIETY RELEASES REPORT ON ENCRYPTION POLICY "CLIPPER CHIP" CONTROVERSY EXPLORED BY EXPERT PANEL WASHINGTON, DC A panel of experts convened by the nation's foremost computing society today released a comprehensive report on U.S. cryptography policy. The report, "Codes, Keys and Conflicts: Issues in U.S Crypto Policy," is the culmination of a ten-month review conducted by the panel of representatives of the computer industry and academia, government officials, and attorneys. The 50-page document explores the complex technical and social issues underlying the current debate over the Clipper Chip and the export control of information security technology. "With the development of the information superhighway, cryptography has become a hotly debated policy issue," according to Joseph DeBlasi, Executive Director of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), which convened the expert panel. "The ACM believes that this report is a significant contribution to the ongoing debate on the Clipper Chip and encryption policy. It cuts through the rhetoric and lays out the facts." Dr. Stephen Kent, Chief Scientist for Security Technology with the firm of Bolt Beranek and Newman, said that he was pleased with the final report. "It provides a very balanced discussion of many of the issues that surround the debate on crypto policy, and we hope that it will serve as a foundation for further public debate on this topic." The ACM report addresses the competing interests of the various stakeholders in the encryption debate -- law enforcement agencies, the intelligence community, industry and users of communications services. It reviews the recent history of U.S. cryptography policy and identifies key questions that policymakers must resolve as they grapple with this controversial issue. The ACM cryptography panel was chaired by Dr. Stephen Kent. Dr. Susan Landau, Research Associate Professor in Computer Science at the University of Massachusetts, co-ordinated the work of the panel and did most of the writing. Other panel members were Dr. Clinton Brooks, Advisor to the Director, National Security Agency; Scott Charney, Chief of the Computer Crime Unit, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Dr. Dorothy Denning, Computer Science Chair, Georgetown University; Dr. Whitfield Diffie, Distinguished Engineer, Sun Microsystems; Dr. Anthony Lauck, Corporate Consulting Engineer, Digital Equipment Corporation; Douglas Miller, Government Affairs Manager, Software Publishers Association; Dr. Peter Neumann, Principal Scientist, SRI International; and David Sobel, Legal Counsel, Electronic Privacy Information Center. Funding for the cryptography study was provided in part by the National Science Foundation. The ACM, founded in 1947, is a 85,000 member non-profit educational and scientific society dedicated to the development and use of information technology, and to addressing the impact of that technology on the world's major social challenges. For general information, contact ACM, 1515 Broadway, New York, NY 10036. (212) 869-7440 (tel), (212) 869-0481 (fax). Information on accessing the report electronically will be posted soon in this newsgroup. ------------------------------ From: wollman@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: BOC Name Changes (was Re: Bell Atlantic Marketing) Date: 30 Jun 1994 21:56:15 GMT Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Neil Weisenfeld wrote: > Well, as many of you probably know, C&P Telephone in the Washington > D.C. area has recently dropped the C&P name and is now using Bell > Atlantic (Potomac?). I don't recall seeing this in the Digest, so ... a few weeks ago, the Rhode Island PUC announced that NYNEX would not be permitted to charge customers for the costs associated with their marketing campaign to get people to forget `New England Telephone'. (Now, of course, this is a complete sham, since ratepayers end up paying for everything anyway, but at least the RI PUC has got some independent-minded people on it ...) Garrett A. Wollman wollman@lcs.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: krazykev@panix.com Subject: Cheapest Cellular Carrier in NYC? Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 18:31:54 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Hi, Who has the cheapest rates for cellular calls in NYC? I am considering getting a cellular phone. I already have the phone, so it is just a question of who has the best deal. If you could email me at: krazykev@panix.com that would be great. ------------------------------ From: anl433!cimet@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com (Arieh Cimet) Subject: Info on TDD Devices Organization: Motorola Land Mobile Products Sector Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 02:18:57 GMT I need information on how TDDs (Telecommunication Devices for the Deaf) work. I have checked the Bellcore catalog and with the phone company but have come up with very little. In particular, I need to know the protocols, interfaces, speed, and modulation types that such devices use. Also, if these devices have been adapated for cellular use. I would appreciate any pointers to standards, documents or any books available on the subject. Thanks in advance for any response. I. Arieh Cimet e-mail: cimet@comm.mot.com Motorola ESMR Infrastructure phone: (708) 576-4565 1301 E. Algonquin Road fax: (708) 538-3472 Schaumburg, IL 60196 ------------------------------ From: carlson@xylogics.com (James Carlson) Subject: Re: KERMIT Through an Intermediate Telnet Node? How? Date: 30 Jun 1994 16:40:43 GMT Organization: Xylogics Incorporated Reply-To: carlson@xylogics.com In article , jrefling@rosslare.ece.uci. edu (John Refling) writes: > Here's the situation: > +-----+ +---------+ +-----------+ > | PC | - phone----> | UNIX BOX| -- INTERNET-->| UNIX BOX | > +-----+ +---------+ +-----------+ > Now, after you dial the first unix box over the phone and are logged > in, you telnet to the second unix box. On the second unix box, you > start kermit to server mode. Then you escape back to the pc and try > to transfer files and the whole thing dies. > I can sort of see why things won't work -- maybe the boxes get > confused over where thier input is coming from ... then again it's not > a problem normally. > Is there a way to get this to work? The problem is most likely that either (1) one of those links isn't transparent or (2) flow control is broken somewhere. Start by making sure that the telnet is transparent. Break to the telnet prompt and turn off the escape character: set escape off Then make sure that the rest of the line is transparent ... James Carlson Tel: +1 617 272 8140 Annex Software Support / Xylogics, Inc. +1 800 225 3317 53 Third Avenue / Burlington MA 01803-4491 Fax: +1 617 272 2618 ------------------------------ From: kmorrill@strauss.udel.edu (Kenneth J Morrill) Subject: Re: KERMIT Through an Intermediate Telnet Node? How? Date: 30 Jun 1994 14:58:00 -0400 Organization: University of Delaware In article , John Refling wrote: > Here's the situation: > +-----+ +---------+ +-----------+ > | PC | - phone----> | UNIX BOX| -- INTERNET-->| UNIX BOX | > +-----+ +---------+ +-----------+ > Now, after you dial the first unix box over the phone and are logged > in, you telnet to the second unix box. On the second unix box, you > start kermit to server mode. Then you escape back to the pc and try > to transfer files and the whole thing dies. I connect from home under the same circumstances. I found that the zmodem protocol works for one file, but not for a batch of files. I have been following the practice of uuencoding binary files and capturing them as text files, then uudecoding them back to binaries. I known that this is not the ultimate solution. Ken Morrill ------------------------------ From: jeffb@audiolab.uwaterloo.ca (Jeff Bamford) Subject: Re: Bilingual Telephone Numbers? Organization: Audio Research Group, University of Waterloo Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 14:42:22 GMT In article , Andrew C. Green wrote: [Found a Caller I.D. box that was bilingual] > Now, perhaps I'm missing something here, but I must admit I don't know > how I would translate "Green, Andrew C." and "(312) 266-xxxx" into > Spanish without the assistance of this thing. Clearly a bargain at > twice the price! Well, Call Display boxes here are bilingual (at least they are from the telco). En francais the time is in 24 hour, the date is obviously French. The message that you have new callers is in French, albeit shortened (nouv appel) etc. However, if your box only displayed name and number there would be no difference. If I had Call Display I'd run the display in French just to get 24h times. Any boxes have that choice? Jeff Bamford jsbamford@uwaterloo.ca -- NeXT Mail welcome ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 06:40:00 -0400 From: joharris@io.org (John Harris) Subject: Re: Bilingual Telephone Numbers? The customer is the person to decide if a product makes her/him feel good. If a person's native tongue is Spanish, s/he may prefer to see "Nueva Llamada" instead of "New Calls" on an alpha-capable display. How much can a few bytes of ROM cost? It's just good design/marketing to add low incremental cost features. John O. Harris BEL-Tronics Ltd. Mississauga, ON joharris@io.org (905) 828-1002 ------------------------------ From: melvin@netcom.com (Stephen Melvin) Subject: Re: AT&T, Paris and Freedom Organization: Zytek, Lda. - Paris Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 20:03:12 GMT In article JeanBernard_Condat@Email.France Net.FR writes: > Yesterday, I was invited to look at 'a sound sculpture for the Arc de > Triomphe by Bill Fontana' in Paris. I went down there today to check it out, actually I thought it was pretty neat. This was not obvious from the blurb, but the speakers at the observation level are transmitting *live* sounds picked up from microphones around the city. For example there is a speaker labeled "Cafe Les Deux Magots" through which you can hear dishes clattering and people talking as you are looking out in the general direction of that place. There are about 15 microphones in cafes, train stations, etc. I think it's an interesting idea. The street level speakers are transmitting ocean surf sounds. (NB: it costs FRF 31 (~USD 6) to go up to the top). > I invite all the reader of this message to appreciate during the next > holidays in France, the Arc de Triomphe of Place de l'Etoile and to > drink a beer on the Champs-Elysees without the poor Bill Fontana' > sculpture and the English-written AT&T Direct Services publicity. I don't understand your objection Jean-Bernard. I don't see this as an AT&T publicity thing. They just funded part of it and their name only appears in small letters at the bottom of the poster describing the exhibit, I had trouble even finding it. So what if they have both French and English descriptions, lots of exhibits in Paris do. Steve Melvin melvin@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Daryl Gibson Subject: Re: Bidding War For - Western Union ?! Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 19:36:09 MST > Item in the Sunday paper says two companies, First Data Corp. and > Forstmann Little & Co. are bidding for Western Union. First Data is > described as an information-and-transaction-processing company that > transfers money. Forstmann Little & Co. is a leveraged buyout firm. > First Data bid $896 million, Forstmann Little bid $951 million, and > First Data added $65 million to its bid. A bankruptcy court judge > ruled friday that the company will be auctioned in September. (Get > your bid in by Sept 2.) Just a note on First Data. First Data is a fairly major firm these days ... it was spun off of American Express a little over a year ago, I believe; at any rate, if you send American Express money transfers (as opposed to Western Union money transfers), you're dealing with First Data. I believe I read something that said they were also the company that was doing the 1-800-COLLECT operator work for MCI, but I could be wrong. They are a big transaction processing firm, a large telemarketing firm, and also do a huge amount of credit card transaction processing for smaller banks. They also do American Express' billing, and I believe have Amex Money Orders, as well. American Express spun off the company as an independent entity; I think it made First Data's bank customers rest easier, knowing that a competing credit card company wasn't taking care of their customers; Before the First Data spinoff, that put Amex in the unlikely position of being one of the biggest issuers of Visa and Mastercards in the United States. And while I'm blathering on about Amex, I remember reading that as one of the first ISDN sites, Amex wired their computers so that when an agent in their Phoenix office answered the phone, they already knew who it was on the other end, and had your account on their screen (assuming you were calling from a number they knew, of course) they had to ban their customer reps from picking up the phone and saying "American Express ... how can I help you, Mr. Jones," because it was bothering too many customers ... Daryl (801) 378-2950 (801) 489-6348 drg@du1.byu.edu 71171.2036@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: tmcreek@eos.ncsu.edu (Tobin M. Creek) Subject: Re: Cellular Phones and Lightning Date: 29 Jun 94 14:57:41 GMT Organization: North Carolina State University shawnlg@netcom.com (Shawn Gordhamer) writes: > Someone told me that in a lightning storm, lightning can follow the > radio waves given out by your cellular phone. I assume this is > because the air is more ionized where the waves are strong. Is this > true? Is it unsafe to use a handheld cellular phone in a lightning > storm? I'm not talking about a mobile phone with a tall antenna. I call "Urban Legend" on this one. I doubt that that statement has any scientific basis whatsoever. If it does, then one of these days, my Motorola will go ZOT! and so will I. :) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #307 ******************************