From: karn@qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 93 19:19:42 PST
To: anagld!decode!system@uunet.uu.net
Subject: LAW: Wireless interception
In-Reply-To: <7FaPcc1w165w@decode.UUCP>
Message-ID: <9311130316.AA00717@servo>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>Interesting reasoning here: "the reasonableness of a cordless telephone
>user's expectation of privacy depends on the specific technology
>involved."

Considering that analog cell phones and cordless phones use the very
same modulation method (FM), albeit at higher power for the cell
phones (making them much easier to intercept than cordless phones at a
distance), it would be much more accurate to say "...depends on
whether the specific technology involved has a large US industrial
base lobbying for it".

Cellular is protected under ECPA because it's big bucks for some
powerful US businesses. Cordless phones don't use a large domestic
infrastructure that charges for airtime. The only money in cordless
phones are in the phones themselves, which are invariably made
overseas.  And Japanese, Chinese and Korean businessmen can't vote in
US elections.

Phil