-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This is from a web-site that is replaying Usenet, including
net.ham-radio, from 30 years ago (currently fall 1986). The site is:

http://www.olduse.net

If you prefer to use your own newsreader, the site also supports an NNTP
connection at:

nntp.olduse.net:119


From net.ham-radio Sun Sep 4 18:11:29 2016
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!well!tenney
From: (Glenn S. Tenney)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio,net.legal,net.video,net.mail
Subject: S.2575 Elec. Comm. Privacy Act text available
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 15-Aug-86 02:20:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: well.1632
Posted: Fri Aug 15 02:20:48 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Aug-86 06:38:25 EDT
Reply-To: (Glenn S. Tenney)
Organization: Whole Earth Lectronic Link, Sausalito CA
Lines: 54
Summary: Electronic Communications Privacy Act text available
Xref: mnetor net.ham-radio:2050 net.legal:3221 net.video:1933 net.mail:1018

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which has passed the
House, now is a bill in the Senate (S.2575). This one Act affects every
usenet, bitnet, bbs, shortwave listener, TV viewer, etc. So that you
can see what is being proposed, I have keyed it in fairly quickly.
There may be some errors, so please do NOT consider this as the
official bill.

Send email to me if you REALLY want me to send you a copy of this 60K
file. If I get enough requests, it might end up being posted to some
newsgroup, but it is huge!

If you want your own official copy, send your request to:
Senate Document Room
Hart Senate Office Building, B 004
Washington, D.C. 20510-7016


- -- Glenn Tenney

UUCP: {hplabs,glacier,lll-crg,ihnp4!ptsfa}!well!tenney
ARPA:


From net.ham-radio Sun Sep 4 18:11:33 2016
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!lll-crg!hoptoad!gnu
From: (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: net.mail,net.news.adm,net.legal,net.ham-radio
Subject: Congress is now debating the future of Usenet
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 18-Aug-86 03:50:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.1013
Posted: Mon Aug 18 03:50:52 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Aug-86 03:53:51 EDT
References:
Followup-To: net.mail
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 45
Xref: watmath net.mail:1792 net.news.adm:906 net.legal:4762 net.ham-radio:4566

Many people probably missed lll-crg!well!tenney's offer to email a copy of
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Listen up! This is no joke!

It appears to put legal liability on Usenet hosts which forward mail or
news for other hosts, and could alter or destroy the current structure
of Usenet (and/or Stargate). It was written by people who DON'T UNDERSTAND
EMAIL and networking, and was lobbied for by the commercial email companies
(telemail, compuserve, etc).

Read (vnews/readnews users type 'p').
Post discussion to net.mail (keep it out of the other groups).

This bill, S.2575, is now pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It
purports to extend constitutional protection against unreasonable
search to electronic storage. However, it also does many other
things. It loosens the existing wiretap authorization laws and also
allows wiretaps and "tracking devices" (bugs) to be placed on people
for up to 48 hours without a court order. It also makes it illegal to
tune in cellular phone calls on your TV (channels 80-83). And it makes
you legally responsible for the carriage of email unless you run a "public
access" system.

Note that the current version of the bill (introduced last week with
no debate) may be better or worse than the above; my copy has not arrived
yet.

To get an up to date, official copy of the bill, contact the staff
below. If you object to it, tell them why, and tell them that you want
action on the bill delayed for further review (e.g. until your views
can be heard in written comments). Tell your home state Senators and
Congressmen the same thing.

Congressional staff:
Ann Harkin, John Podesta 202 224 4242
Steve Metalitz, Ken Mannella 202 224 5617
Judiciary Committee 202 224 5225
ACLU:
Jerry Berman, technology/privacy 202 544 1681

Hit them now on it, before they get back to session and try to pass it!
- --
John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu
May the Source be with you!


From net.ham-radio Sun Sep 4 18:11:36 2016
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!well!tenney
From: (Glenn S. Tenney)
Newsgroups: net.mail,net.ham-radio,net.legal,net.crypt,net.politics
Subject: S.2575 Elec Comm Priv Act text on net.sources
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 21-Aug-86 02:21:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: well.1661
Posted: Thu Aug 21 02:21:29 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Aug-86 21:02:03 EDT
References:
Reply-To: (Glenn S. Tenney)
Organization: Whole Earth Lectronic Link, Sausalito CA
Lines: 19
Keywords: Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
Summary: text prior to 12 Aug '86 available
Xref: mnetor net.mail:1036 net.ham-radio:2128 net.legal:3319 net.crypt:554 net.politics:9292

(What is a line eater?)

Due to the overwhelming response, I have posted the complete text of
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in net.sources. Although
there have been some changes 12 August 1986, I think everyone should
try to wade through it (until someone posts a good summary) since it
could affect ALL of us. Be careful, because just reading it you might
think "Wow, this is good for us". You'll have to read it again more
carefully to see that the text EXPLICITLY makes it illegal to receive
scrambled or encrypted signals, or signals carried on a subcarrier, EVEN
IF it is otherwise readily accessible to the general public --- eg.
VideoText or closed captioning!!!!!!


- -- Glenn Tenney
UUCP: {hplabs,glacier,lll-crg,ihnp4!ptsfa}!well!tenney
ARPA: Delphi and MCI Mail: TENNEY
As Alphonso Bodoya would say... (tnx boulton)
Disclaimers? DISCLAIMERS!? I don' gotta show you no stinking DISCLAIMERS!


From net.ham-radio Sun Sep 4 18:11:38 2016
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!bogstad
From: (William Bogstad )
Newsgroups: net.mail,net.ham-radio,net.legal,net.crypt,net.politics
Subject: S.2575 Elec Comm Priv Act text on net.sources
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 26-Aug-86 04:12:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.3313
Posted: Tue Aug 26 04:12:12 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Aug-86 20:50:56 EDT
References:
Reply-To: (William Bogstad (JHU|mike) bogstad)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 27
Keywords: Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
Summary: August 12th version posted
Xref: mnetor net.mail:1063 net.ham-radio:2137 net.legal:3380 net.crypt:561 net.politics:9364

In article (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:
(What is a line eater?)

Due to the overwhelming response, I have posted the complete text of
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in net.sources. Although
there have been some changes 12 August 1986, I think everyone should
try to wade through it (until someone posts a good summary) since it
could affect ALL of us. Be careful, because just reading it you might
think "Wow, this is good for us". You'll have to read it again more
carefully to see that the text EXPLICITLY makes it illegal to receive
scrambled or encrypted signals, or signals carried on a subcarrier, EVEN
IF it is otherwise readily accessible to the general public --- eg.
VideoText or closed captioning!!!!!!

First, I would like to thank Glenn for keying in the original
Senate Bill 2575. I recently received a copy of the changes made
on August 12th and have merged them into the original posted by Glenn.
The uuencoded, compressed, context difference file of these changes
have been posted to net.sources. The only major changes have to do
with video and satellite transmissions. It looks like HBO, Showtime,
etc. have gotten involved in lobbying on this legislation. Also,
Captain Midnight? would be in real trouble if he interferred with HBO's
signal again. (Grep for video and also look at the very end.)

Bill Bogstad




From net.ham-radio Sun Sep 4 18:11:41 2016
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!hoptoad!gnu
From: (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: net.mail,net.crypt,net.ham-radio
Subject: Should encrypted radio be legally protected?
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 28-Aug-86 03:40:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.1044
Posted: Thu Aug 28 03:40:22 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Aug-86 21:31:46 EDT
References:
Followup-To: net.mail
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 34
Xref: mnetor net.mail:1067 net.crypt:562 net.ham-radio:2169

[Followups have been redirected to net.mail where general discussion
of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act is in progress.]

In article , William Bogstad writes:
In my opinion, a better law would be to protect
scrambled/encrypted conversations on the radio waves and leave
unprotected messages legally unprotected. This might encourage the
vendors to provide systems with real security and would put the law more
in step with the protection you can expect to actually have if someone
tries to break the law anyway.

I believe that law should generally follow reality. Throwing a signal
into the airwaves is equivalent to painting it on a wall. Anybody can
come by and look at it (in reality) and some of them might be able to
make some sense of it. If your business requires painting private
information on public walls, you'd better be *sure* your encryption is
good. A law that says "any old encryption will do" does NOT encourage
vendors to provide systems with real security -- if somebody breaks it,
and they find out, they can always tie the guy up with lawyers. On the
other hand, having no legal protection for any radio signals (e.g. if
you can decrypt it, it's yours) provides a STRONG incentive for vendors
to provide real, live, secure, working encryption. If somebody breaks
the encryption, their data becomes public and they have to invent a new
scheme, which costs money. Better for them to do it right the first time.

Reminds me of the old gun control motto: If decryption is outlawed,
only outlaws will have your data. (If decryption was legal, NOBODY
would have your data, assuming you do it right.)

Protecting "encrypted" signals would make it illegal to receive a
radio transmission that had been run through "rot13"...
- --
John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu
May the Source be with you!


From net.ham-radio Sun Sep 4 18:11:51 2016
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!uwvax!caseus!dan
From: (Daniel M. Frank)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio,net.unix
Subject: S.2575 comments
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 2-Sep-86 23:24:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: rsch.2656
Posted: Tue Sep 2 23:24:56 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Sep-86 02:13:31 EDT
Sender:
Reply-To: (Daniel M. Frank)
Organization: University of Wisconsin
Lines: 68
Keywords: naive
Xref: mnetor net.ham-radio:2202 net.unix:5346


I've had a look through the updated version of the Senate bill, and have
a couple comments. I am not an attorney or legislator, and I do not have a
copy of Title 18 to amend, so these may not be very informed observations:

First, I was surprised at how mild much of the bill appears to be, con-
sidering the cries of outrage that accompanied its posting. It's got
some stupidity (I'll get to that), but much of the bill seems to be
directed at updating existing communications and wiretapping law to
reflect the existence of electronic media. Most of its poor ideas seem
to stem from ignorance rather than real malicious intent.

I see two serious difficulties with the bill. First, and of most concern
to usenet and BBS operators, is the complete failure to recognize the
distinction between public, ad hoc, voluntary message services such as
usenet, and for-profit electronic mail carriers. It has been pointed
out already that the legal burdens placed upon a usenet site to maintain
the privacy and security of communications is onerous. The bill may
open a site operator up to criminal and civil action in the case that
some user feels he has been damaged; you would have to consult an attorney
to be sure.

More interesting to me is that a government agency can obtain an
order requiring you to make copies of all mail coming through your
site to a particular individual. Since, to my knowledge, software to
do this is not commonly available, this may entail substantial expense,
for which you may or may not be able to be reimbursed.

The second problem is, of course, the bill's simplemindedness with
regard to radio technology. While seeming to exclude from penalties
the interception of clear channel communications in the land mobile
services, it then forbids interception of clear channel transmissions
by common carriers. Excuse me, but doesn't that mean almost everyone
in the commercial communications business? In addition, such things
as the interception of data on subcarriers is forbidden! Thus, if
you have an SCA decoder, which anyone with $6.95, a Radio Shack, and
a copy of Popular Electronics can build, you are a criminal if you
intercept, for example, a reading service for the blind. I think
it may also be illegal to pick up closed captioning without some
sort of authorization, but it's not entirely clear.

By the way, there is some fascinating language forbidding interception
of signals "transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential
parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of
preserving the privacy of such communication". Hmmm. To my knowledge,
the owners of patents on such techniques (clearly they mean video
scrambling here) have, by filing such patents, made such modulation
techniques accessible to the public; they have not "withheld" them. Also,
the bill does not specify who must have done the withholding, or what
constitutes an "essential parameter". Barring a stupid judge (oh
well), is this enforceable?

Anyway, this is just an amateur analysis, but I though it might stimulate
some discussion which, aside from the hand-wringing, has been absent.
Also, some of these points (please check with someone more legally adept
than myself), might form the focus of a letter to a senator. I think
the point about reading services on SCA subcarriers and closed captioning
might get someone's attention, whether or not they're bogus.


- ------

Dan Frank

Q: What's the difference between an Apple MacIntosh
and an Etch-A-Sketch?

A: You don't have to shake the Mac to clear the screen.


From net.ham-radio Sun Sep 4 18:11:55 2016
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ll-xn!mit-amt!mit-eddie!barmar
From: (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio,net.unix
Subject: S.2575 comments
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 4-Sep-86 00:58:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.3111
Posted: Thu Sep 4 00:58:20 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Sep-86 20:12:28 EDT
References:
Reply-To: (Barry Margolin)
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 21
Keywords: naive
Xref: mnetor net.ham-radio:2207 net.unix:5365

In article (Daniel M. Frank) writes:
By the way, there is some fascinating language forbidding interception
of signals "transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential
parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of
preserving the privacy of such communication". Hmmm. To my knowledge,
the owners of patents on such techniques (clearly they mean video
scrambling here) have, by filing such patents, made such modulation
techniques accessible to the public; they have not "withheld" them.

The quote you provided doesn't say anything about the techniques, it
says parameters. Thus, if a signal has been encrypted, the "essential
parameters" refers to the decryption key, which is normally withheld
from the public, even though the encryption device has been patented.

On the other hand, maybe they aren't talking about patented scrambling
techniques, but are saying that broadcasters must use proprietary
scrambling devices in order to be protected.
- --
Barry Margolin
ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEARECAAYFAlfMnVsACgkQ6Pj0az779o5gFQCglIFW9KOiBJ Txk6IsWUL8puE1
5JgAoLtIxUSHpzPt4sLKcrZGD6mvCgWv
=bXlB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----