From: Mac Norton <mnorton@cavern.uark.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 20:18:00 PDT
To: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: GAK
In-Reply-To: <199509150055.UAA18048@book.hks.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950919221522.1807D-100000@cavern>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


As I said, phones are inherently tappable--going
upstream to the switch must makes it easier to do
and harder to detect.  This doesn't force the 
conclusion that, if people speak in code on the
phone, they have to give the gov't the key.

MacN

On Thu, 14 Sep 1995, Lucky Green wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> In article <9509141935.AA09315@argosy.MasPar.COM>, koontz@MasPar.COM
> (David G. Koontz) wrote:
> 
> 
> >While not every telephone, every telephone switch is required
> >to be tap capable  - The Digital Telephony Act.  Note there is
> >provision for the government to pay costs for Telcos to make 
> >their phones tappable - as yet unfunded by Congress.
> 
> Most telephones can be used to monitor conversations in the room they are
> installed in even while on-hook. No need to ever enter the premises. Just
> drive it with AC.  Look at your basic telephone diagram and remember
> Xc=1/(omega*C) from your AC circuits class.
> 
> - -- 
> - -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com>
>    PGP encrypted mail preferred.
> - ---
> [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service.  A valid signature
> means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the
> signature and forwarded.]
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
> Comment: Gratis auto-signing service
> 
> iQBFAwUBMFjO4yoZzwIn1bdtAQFmjwGAwMA+G0nO0m/lmYeqPJEsC5NJNLvS5cYk
> +cMaVSJb+Kwk6+uywu8v088Ih8Nz7uo9
> =elV9
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>