TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Sep 94 12:17:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 375 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson S. 1822: Sen. Hollings and Others' Reactions (Jeff Richards) Another Civil Liberty Group (Dave Banisar) Re: FBI Wiretap Bill -- WTF? (Eric N. Florack) Re: FBI Wiretap Bill -- WTF? (Michael Chui) Re: FBI Wiretap Bill -- WTF? (John Higdon) Re: FBI Wiretap Bill -- WTF? (Tom Horsley) Re: Wiretap Emergency (Steve Granata) Re: Telecommuting Law (Travis Russell) Re: Telecommuting Law (Bob Elliot) Re: Telecommuting Law (Bob Keller) Re: Telecommuting Law (Steve Cogorno) Re: Telecommuting Law (Jonathan Liu) Re: Telecommuting Law (Jim Burkit) 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 America On Line. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mfjtf@bell.com (special) Subject: S. 1822: Sen. Hollings and Others' Reactions Date: 26 Sep 1994 15:19:47 GMT Organization: Capital Area Internet Service email info@cais.com On September 23, 1994, Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee announced his decision to withdraw from further consideration S. 1822, the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1994. In a written statement, Senator Hollings explains his reasons for taking this action. This has triggered a number of responses. An initially comprehensive set of statements by key players and third parties is now available by gopher and WWW on bell.com. These include: Senator Hollings Statement Senator Dole's Statement MFJ Task Force Reaction Sprint Reaction American Telemedicine Association Reaction National Association of Development Organization Reaction Access2000 (Independent Film & Video Producers) Reaction Access instructions: ftp://bell.com/pub/Announcements_on_S.1822_Withdrawal gopher://bell.com http://bell.com For questions or copies via mail (e-mail or snail mail), send request to . Jeff Richards MFJ Task Force Internet: mfjtf@bell.com 1133-21st Street, NW # 700 Washington, DC 20036-3349 ------------------------------ Organization: Electronic Privacy Information Center From: Dave Banisar Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 02:07:10 EST Subject: Another Civil Liberty Group Opposes Wiretap Bill The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) today wrote to Rep. Jack Brooks, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, "to express the ACLU's opposition to the FBI Wiretap Access Bill, H.R. 4922." The organization's position is the latest indication that the legislation is running into serious trouble in Congress for several reasons, including strong opposition from civil liberties and privacy advocates. The bill's proponents had initially hoped to bring it to a vote on the floors of the House and Senate by mid-September. Instead, the bill remains in committees of both houses and is the object of a grassroots campaign to prevent its enactment. Excerpts from the ACLU letter: "The principal problem remains that any digital telephone bill which mandates that communications providers make technological changes for the sole purpose of making their systems wiretap-ready creates a dangerous and unprecedented presumption that government not only has the power, subject to warrant to intercept private communications, but that it can require private parties to create special access. It is as if the government had required all builders to construct new housing with an internal surveillance camera for government use. ... "Moreover, the FBI has not borne the burden of proving why such an extraordinary requirement is necessary. ... "H.R. 4922 proposes a radical and expensive change in our telecommuni- cations structure. The threats it poses, now and prospectively, are real, but the need for it is far less than evident or proven. We urge that your Committee not rush into consideration of this far reaching measure with so little time left in the session." The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is urging all concerned individuals and organizations to contact the following members of Congress immediately: Rep. Jack Brooks Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (202) 225-6565 (voice) (202) 224-7494 (voice) (202) 225-1584 (fax) (202) 224-5474 (fax) For more information about the FBI Wiretap Bill, check the Voters Telecomm Watch (VTW) gopher site (gopher.panix.com) or send e-mail to . ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 06:34:38 PDT From: Eric_N._Florack.cru-mc@xerox.com Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Bill -- WTF? Pat: You recently responded to mkj@world.std.com (Mahatma Kane-Jeeves) regards the FBI's position on Wiretapping the Digital network. My own views on this subject are fairly well known to the regulars here, having recently been posted in this list. Imagine my surprise on reading your response. It certainly explained why my computer room clock had stopped: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My own opinion is that the people making > the protests are by and large over-reacting. I've included some of their > press releases and 'write your congressperson' requests here in this > Digest in an effort to be fair about it and give their side of the story, > but honestly, I can't see what they have gotten in such an uproar over.<< We seem to agree, here. > The other day someone sent in something saying 'congressman so-and- so > says he has not received a single letter from citizens in opposition to > the bill ...', and while some of that lack of letter writing may be due > to the ignorance of the general public on 'how telephones work', I do > beleive some of it is also due to the fact that most people don't feel > as threatened by these things as do the denizens of EFF and various > privacy advocates on the net. Of course a fair rebuttal to that might be > that it is precisely because of that general ignorance of telephone > operations that people are not alarmed; that if the public in general > knew as much about telephone networks and systems as a few of us do, > they too would be greatly concerned and busy letter writing, etc. Frankly, Pat, I rather doubt the latter. The people are simply not as concerned as the EFF is about such things. > Like yourself, I find its simply too easy to tap telephones without being > caught at it to concern myself with some new legislation on the subject. > In any large older urban area, illicit tapping of telephones is child's > play. Just get your alligator clips and go do it at any one of a dozen > demarcs between the subscriber and the central office where the cable > pairs are multipled, or available. I am not saying I *do that*; I do not > do it, and I think it ethically wrong, but anyone can do it very easily. You certainly can right now, but I wonder about the near future. Allow me a question: Do you see us going end-to-end digital at any time soon? Once that happens, it's going to be quite a feat to tap in so simple a manner. Hence the need for the bill. (Among a host of other reasons.) EFF's noisemaking is just that; much ado about nothing, and little else but an attempt to keep themselves in the spotlight. (Of course, given the scorching of my mailbox the last time I mentioned this stand on this issue, it would seem the EFF is quite good at marshalling it's forces ... I fully expect more of the same, from this post.) E [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is not politically correct to ever criticize the EFF or the ACLU, both of whom have graced (or would you say defaced?) these columns with their remarks from time to time. One must never assume anything but the noblest intentions by both organiza- tions we are told. I haven't heard much lately from another of their kind, the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. Never having been, nor had any desire to be socially responsible, I used to run their press releases from time to time more as curiosities than anything else. Will we go end-to-end digital anytime soon in any large scale way? Personally, I doubt it. I think we can rely on our alligator clips and lineman's headsets for quite awhile. But another writer today doesn't think so. A note from John Higdon later in this issue claims things are changing rapidly. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 21:20:03 -0500 From: Michael Chui Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Bill -- WTF? Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University PAT: In article you write: > Like yourself, I find its simply too easy to tap telephones without being > caught at it to concern myself with some new legislation on the subject. [snip] > Between the many cellular/cordless phone snoops out there listening and > the other easy ways there are of listening to phones, why should anyone > care about still new proposals, government or otherwise? PAT] Well, this particular proposal has some rather specific provisions which I find troubling. It requires common carriers to re-engineer their networks in order to make wiretapping easy. The cost for this re-engineering is to be paid for by federal tax dollars. Nobody has been able to quantify this cost (oh, great), and you probably would have some better idea what kind of figures are reasonable than I would, but the $500 million FBI estimate is generally considered to be low. And if the law were returned to its original form (no federal money - - just a mandate that common carriers re-engineer their networks for easy wire- tapping), ratepayers would bear the cost of redesigning the phone network as a ready-made surveillance system. As you mention, legal wiretaps have not yet been substantially hindered by the deployment of new technology (the FBI has been unable to substantiate their claims that it has -- they have only been able to count less than 200 cases, and even that number has been a shifty target). So why should we have to pay, either as taxpayers, or ratepayers, for the provisions of this bill? Michael Chui mchui@cs.indiana.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So we get it either way. Uncle Sugar says telco has to pay; they pass it on to you, the ratepayer. Or Uncle Sugar says the Federal Bastion of Inquisition (FBI) has to pay; the bill gets sent to you, the taxpayer. They got it made. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 03:37:00 -0700 From: John Higdon Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Bill -- WTF? In response to an article from mkj@world.std.com (Mahatma Kane- Jeeves), the Telecom Digest Editor writes: > Like yourself, I find its simply too easy to tap telephones without > being caught at it to concern myself with some new legislation on the > subject. In any large older urban area, illicit tapping of telephones > is child's play. Just get your alligator clips and go do it at any one > of a dozen demarcs between the subscriber and the central office where > the cable pairs are multipled, or available. This is more and more becoming less and less true. In an effort to maximize facilities and to avoid the installation of more copper, telcos are rapidly putting customers on digital facilities. Existing copper pairs are being graced with T1 and newly constructed facilities are fiber cable, not copper. Indeed, if you wanted to tap my service (and I certainly am not GE or General Motors), you would need considerably more than a butt set and alligator clips. You would need a T1 test set capable of drop/insert. To do it "undetected" you would have to avoid damaging the stream enough to prevent the various "color" alarms. In other words, tapping such a line would require specialized equipment at any cable distribution point between the CO and the customer premises. It is not unusual for a customer to have a span for POTS, another for "internal use" connectivity between locations, and yet another from an IXC. I know of many companies who have no analog service entry whatsoever. > Between the many cellular/cordless phone snoops out there listening and > the other easy ways there are of listening to phones, why should anyone > care about still new proposals, government or otherwise? PAT] While on its face it might seem that cellular calls are particularly easy to intercept, the FBI is not expecially interested in listening to random snippets of calls. It wants to monitor all calls to and from a particular cellular telephone. This is no small matter. Monitoring over the air is impossible, since the phone could be anywhere in the geographic area and local cells could easily obliterate any reception from afar. And monitoring in the MTSO is not currently feasable since most systems are highly distributed in nature and the audio, digitized or otherwise, does not pass reliably through any central point in the system. So there is some validity to the FBI's expressed concern. My fear is that in order to accomodate and facilitate monitoring of digital facilities we will go too far and create a CENTRALIZED monitoring facility. After all, with the networks available now in this country, geography is of little concern. While court orders might still be technically necessary, if the FBI has the ability to punch in a couple of numbers to monitor any phone in the nation, there could be an awful lot of "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" if someone asks if a warrant was obtained. John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Bill -- WTF? Date: 26 Sep 1994 13:59:58 GMT Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division Reply-To: Tom.Horsley@mail.csd.harris.com > [...Between the many cellular/cordless phone snoops out there listening and > the other easy ways there are of listening to phones, why should anyone > care about still new proposals, government or otherwise? PAT] Because the FBI wants to spend $500 million of your tax money to do something you just described as trivial (and the phone industry says it will cost even more than that). If they really only have about 1000 authorized taps in a year and you figure 10 to 20 years of use for the current phone technology that comes to around $10000 to $20000 per tap (not counting the cost of the people listening to the tapes, making transcripts, etc). It seems like a fantastic amount of money to spend on a non-problem. Tom.Horsley@mail.csd.harris.com Home: 511 Kingbird Circle Delray Beach FL 33444 Work: Harris Computers, 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. Ft. Lauderdale FL 33309 Take the pledge! No votes for Ollie North supporters! NO POND SCUM! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Tom, the government is very good at spending fantastic amounts of money on non-problems. Remember a few years ago when some government agency spent a hundred dollars for a screwdriver, and how much was it -- $700.00 ?? -- for a toilet seat? And how many times have we read or heard about 'cost overruns' in the budget of some Defense Department contractor? Millions and millions of dollars squandered and unaccounted for each time around ... non-problems are what the govern- ment is good at solving. The telcos are no better; they have legions of accounting clerks in back-offices across the land yet at any given time they have no earthly idea what's going on. Uncle Sugar and the telcos are like two peas in a pod; they are perfect for each other. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 10:26:54 EST From: Steve.Granata@GSA.GOV Subject: Re: Wiretap Emergency > I just spoke with Joe Barton (R) from Texas about the FBI wiretap > bill. He is on a subcommittee that is hearing the bill. He has > heard no citizen opposition to it. [snip] > Folks, if we can generate a few hundred calls and well-thought-out > faxes tommorrow, we might have some effect. I don't know a lot about > him, but he seemed to be of the opinion that he didn't really know > that much about the bill. It's up to us to educate him. Last Tuesday I attended the House Telecommunications Subcommittee hearing on digital telephony and wiretapping, concerning the provisions of H.R. 4922, the bill to which the writer above referred. Mr. Barton's House colleague and fellow Texan, Rep. Jack Fields (R-TX) is one of the bill's cosponsors. For the record, none of the parties to the hearing were concerned about the wiretapping provisions of the bill. All subcommittee Members present spoke in favor of the wiretapping provisions, as did panels of industry and government witnesses, including FBI Director Freeh. The only outstanding legislative issues concern the cost of building equipment that is digital-wiretap-ready, and the scope of H.R. 4922, which covers only common carriers. Steve Granata (Steve.Granata@GSA.GOV) Contract Specialist FTS2000 Network Enhancements Branch ------------------------------ From: russell@tekelec.com (Travis Russell) Subject: Re: Telecommuting Law Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:18:41 GMT Organization: Tekelec, Inc. In article , rwarren@Cayman.COM (Ralph Warren) says: > I know that California businesses can get tax breaks if they have a > certain percentage, but this would allow for fines to be issued to > companies that don't. In the city of Los Angeles, all companies with more than 50 employees are required by law to put into place a ride sharing program for their employees. The companies must show evidence that they have done such, and show they have provided incentive for their employees to participate. Failure to comply to this law will result in fines. I have heard fines up to $25,000 for non-compliance. Telecommuting is one of the options that a company in Los Angeles can provide, but is not a requirement. Many companies have gone to a 4/40 work week, which gets their employees on and off the freeway system outside of rush hour, or so the theory goes. As a former LA commuter, rush hour begins at 5:30 AM and ends around 7:00 PM at night. I too would have welcomed telecommuting options, but part of the problem is the lack of technology from the telephone company to make this feasible. PacTel has recently announced plans to put fiber and coax into place at every residence by the end of this decade, which will greatly increase the number of telecommuters in this region. Lets hope so anyway. Travis Russell russell@tekelec.com ------------------------------ From: eti@starbase.neosoft.com (Bob Elliot) Subject: Re: Telecommuting Law Date: 26 Sep 1994 11:15:41 GMT Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 684 5969 Ralph Warren (rwarren@Cayman.COM) wrote: > Is the federal govt proposing a telecommuting law requiring large > businesses in metro areas to have a certain percentage of telecommuters? > I know that California businesses can get tax breaks if they have a > certain percentage, but this would allow for fines to be issued to > companies that don't. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've not heard of any proposed law to > fine companies which don't have telecommuters, but I do know that this > is being strongly urged in certain areas. They say they are meeting > some resistance in finding workers interested in doing it ... personally > I love working at home and would hate to go back to a large office all > day, plus the trouble of getting to and from the place. PAT] You've got to be joking! At least we in Texas would fight any such proposed law by the Federal Government. That would interfere with the Right to Work law in this State. And it would interfere with my choice of choosing to commute or telecommute. Bob Elliott RTNs eti@starbase.NeoSoft.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is not clear to me who you think is joking ... Mr. Warren with his original comments or me in my reply. I would think that telecommuting would enhance Right to Work where it exists simply because how's the union going to get all those homeworkers signed up? And given the choice of driving through rush hour traffic at 5:30 in the morning or rolling over and going back to sleep until 8:00 AM, then making a pot of coffee and waddling off to your home terminal and logging in, which would you choose? Yes, I guess some people actually like getting dressed and fighting the traffic and sitting in an office full of half-witted people all day, but it certainly is not for me. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 09:17:37 EDT From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: Telecommuting Law In TELECOM Digest V14 #371, rwarren@Cayman.COM (Ralph Warren) asked: > Is the federal govt proposing a telecommuting law requiring large > businesses in metro areas to have a certain percentage of telecommuters? It may be worth your time to call Mr. Steven N. Teplitz (of Fleischman and Walsh in Washington DC) at 202-939-7921 and run this question by him. A former Captiol Hill staffer, he helped to found and is now General Counsel to some sort of telecommuting trade association (I forget its exact name) whose members tend to be large companies (e.g., Bell Atlantic). He ought to know if there is any such move afoot. Bob Keller Robert J. Keller, P.C. Tel +1 301 229 5208 rjk@telcomlaw.com Telecommunications Law Fax +1 301 229 6875 finger me for FCC Daily Digests and miscellaneous FCC releases ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Telecommuting Law Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 11:11:56 GMT I haven't heard of a federal law to this effect, but California will be implementing a program that requires employers to pay the state (or county agency that serves as the state's designee) for each car that is parked at its facility. This is to promote carpooling and telecommuting. I guess you could call it an "indirect" telecommuting requirement. Steve cogorno@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That sounds a lot like the infamous 'head tax' the Democratic politicians put in place here in Chicago many years ago which is still in existence. All employers in Chicago have to pay a certain tax per person/month for each employee who *lives outside Chicago* but commutes to work. The theory is if the person actually lived here, the politicians would be able able to tax them directly everytime the person took a breath. Since people from outside the city don't get the 'privilege' of paying taxes that are as high as those who do live in the city, the politicians wanted to make it up to them somehow. :) As large employers began to flee the area several years ago the response by our city fathers was 'what ingratitude!' ... you see, its a privilege to be able to come to Chicago to work everyday. I guess the same is true of New York and Los Angeles. If telecommuting really catches on, watch the local yokels figure out a way to put the squeeze on both the home workers and the companies they work for. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jdl@wam.umd.edu (Jonathan) Subject: Re: Telecommuting Law Date: 26 Sep 1994 00:47:17 GMT Organization: University of Maryland, College Park I oppose a federal law which would force businesses to do this, but I support state initiatives to reduce traffic and traffic-related pollution, and in general I prefer the use of tax-incentives to criminal sanctions; charging a state commuter tax on businesses would force businesses to pay part of the costs of roads, pollution, etc. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 1994 10:47:10 GMT From: JIM BURKIT Subject: Re: Telecommuting Law > Is the federal govt proposing a telecommuting law requiring large > businesses in metro areas to have a certain percentage of telecommuters? I think that the federal govt has directed some or all states to reduce auto travel (Clean Air Act) but leaves how that is done to the states. In NY large companies have to basically reduce the number of cars in there parking lots. Companies can be fined if the number of auto trips isn't reduced by some amount (I think the number is 25 percent). This can be done by telecommuting, reducing the number of working days, etc. NY only counts the last leg of the commute and therefore a company could close a location where everyone only commutes say three miles by car and open a location where everyone has to commute thirty miles by train plus five miles by car to get to the train. This would count as an improvement of 100% even with more auto miles. My building is closing next year and we have to move to a location in midtown Manhattan. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is referred to as 'games politicians play'. Yes, you are correct in how the statistics would then be calculated. Why be straight-forward in trying to solve problems when you can manipulate statistics a little and make it seem like a goal has been reached. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #375 ****************************