From: Alan Bostick <abostick@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:49:16 -0800 (PST)
To: Michael Tighe SUN IMP <michael.tighe@Central.Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: Newt's phone calls
In-Reply-To: <199701142058.OAA05219@jeep.Central.Sun.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9701141425.A3919-0100000@netcom18>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Michael Tighe SUN IMP wrote:

> Bill Stewart writes:
> 
> >Tapping cellphones is more trouble than tapping wired phones -
> >they move around, and to tap them from the phone company end
> >requires taps everywhere that you activate when you know where
> >somebody is.
> 
> Exactly. So how come mom&pop with a scanner were able to record BOTH sides
> of the conversation without interruption? This seems pretty suspicious to
> me. I think Old Newt was targeted by someone inside the phone company, who
> was eavesdropping on all of his cell calls.
> 

It is also possible that somewhere in the chain of information between
mom&pop, the media, and us, the distinction between "cordless phone"
and cellular phone.  I gather it was a conference call that was 
intercepted.  All it takes is one participant using a cordless phone in 
range of one scanner, and the whole conversation is compromised.

(Someone mentioned that they thought cordless phone intercepts weren't 
illegal the way cellular phone intercepts are.  IANAL, but I recall that
intercepting both was made illegal by the same legislation.)

Of course, if the phone in question was a cell phone that happened to 
be stationary -- like a handheld phone in someone's back yard or in a 
restaurant or whatever, the question of the call jumping cells is moot.

Alan Bostick               | To achieve harmony in bad taste is the height
mailto:abostick@netcom.com | of elegance.
news:alt.grelb             |      Jean Genet
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick