Transcription by CastingWords
This is WBAI New York. It's 9 o'clock. Time for Off the Hook.
This is WBAI New York. It's 9 o'clock. Time for Off the Hook.
And a good evening to one and all. The program is Off the Hook. This is Emanuel Goldstein.
We're speaking tonight about privacy and your telephone. Stay tuned.
We're speaking tonight.
We'll be right back.
And we do take a lot of things for granted in this day and age.
One thing, though, that we're learning to do more and more to protect
and are less and less surprised by the things that happen to us.
One of those things is privacy.
That's right, privacy is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain these days.
And in a moment, we'll have some rather frightening news.
But first, some rather funny news.
This is a story entitled, Mad Computer, Khan's Supermarket Customers.
It comes out of the Le Canard Enchant of March 25th, out of France.
Seeing one's bank account being repeatedly debited over a period of several months
to the credit of a store where you have never set foot.
That was the complaint of about a thousand customers of a Paris supermarket.
Whenever they paid for their expenses using their Visa International card,
they were in fact feeding, without their knowledge, a clothing store,
which hadn't even asked for it.
And because of a computer error, more than 450,000 francs,
which is about 90,000 U.S. dollars,
was drawn from these involuntary customers.
It all started on October 14th, 1991,
with a manager of a Kodak supermarket,
that's the name of their supermarkets over there,
in Paris.
Notice that his cash registers were systematically rejecting
all payments made by Visa International cards.
He called the PSI Alcatel ISR Company,
which installed the system and is responsible for its maintenance.
In order to find out the source of the problem,
a technician from PSI Alcatel made a copy of the store's customer file
into one of his company's programs.
And having apparently corrected the error,
he sent the file back to the Kodak supermarket.
Well, a few weeks later,
a riot, or something rather close to that,
erupted at the Kodak supermarket.
Dozens of irate customers stormed into the store's offices.
Their banking accounts,
which were debited normally the previous month,
after they made a few purchases at Kodak
using their Visa Internationals,
found they were being debited again,
but this time,
to the credit of Jiffy Center,
which is a clothing store in Nantes,
a city on the Atlantic Ocean,
several hundred miles from Paris.
The grand total of these double payments,
229,000 francs,
or about 40,000 U.S. dollars.
In early January of 1992,
the manager alerted PSI Alcatel.
The answer was given without any trace of emotion.
PSI Alcatel knew about these computer blunders for several weeks.
And that was because Jiffy Center,
who was also wondering why they were suddenly getting all this money,
had taken the trouble to inform PSI Alcatel about all this.
Now, for the poor manager of the Kodak supermarket,
being unable to provide any explanation,
he found himself being called a crook
by quite a few of his customers.
PSI Alcatel claimed to be working hard on the problem,
but to no avail,
since the trouble started all over again in February.
This time, from a store in Brittany,
on the West Coast,
also part of the Jiffy Center chain,
which is the beneficiary of this horrible mistake.
500 clients this time are affected.
Some of them, according to the Kodak manager,
are even being debited four times for the same amount.
At this stage, the police,
being flooded with complaints,
open an investigation,
and they summon the poor Kodak supermarket manager.
It's not hard to understand why many of the affected customers
have had to pay interest penalties to their banks,
since their accounts have had overdrafts because of these repeated payments.
Others have had to pay penalties for return checks,
or have been on the brink of having their bank cards cancelled.
Well, through a series of hard work,
PSI Alcatel at last discovered the source of all these computer follies.
Are you ready?
The technician, who had copied the customer file into his own program,
had forgotten to erase the file.
A fateful mistake,
because every time PSI Alcatel sold their program for managing cash registers,
they were also unwittingly selling the Kodak's customer file.
And after that,
whenever the program had been inserted into a store's computer,
it would direct the banks to debit the accounts of the customers
recorded in that file.
Amazing, isn't it?
One piece of good news, though.
PSI Alcatel claims to have sold this overfilled program to no one else
other than Jiffy Center.
The customers of the Kodak supermarket have avoided the worst,
since Jiffy Center owns about 40 stores in France,
that's the number of times the mad computers could have emptied their accounts.
Quite a story,
something to think about next time you see an unauthorized charge on your credit card.
It's happened to almost everybody I know at least once.
Oh, yes.
Well,
the Washington Post also had an article about,
this is for all you privacy nuts,
about a new Xerox software product
designed to provide remote access to a personal computer
through a fax machine.
Basically, you can fax a message to your personal computer
with instructions on what you want,
and it will fax the files to a number of your choosing.
And if you don't have the proper form handy,
you simply fax it a blank sheet of paper,
and that will cause it to fax the blank form right back to you.
Now, according to a posting in the Risks Digest by Jeremy Epstein,
The product sounds really neat,
but the first thought that came to my mind
was security.
If I know that Jane Doe has this software on her PC,
how will it prevent me from asking for a copy of anything on her PC?
The article didn't mention any security measures
to prevent a machine from attack.
And talking about computer viruses,
traces of the GP1 virus
have been discovered in the computers of the Court of Cassession,
the Courts of Appeal
and the High Tribunal for Public Waters in Italy.
The virus was discovered by the Central Security Office,
which reports to the presidency.
Rather than destroying data,
GP1 awards maximum security clearance
to all minimum security level users.
Now, on to our main feature of the day.
And that involves the FBI,
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
They have a proposal
on something called digital telephony.
And to basically read very quickly
the summary of the issues that they have brought up
in this particular proposal,
and a kind of a summary of facts here
from the FBI point of view.
We'll look at that.
We'll speak to Mike Godwin
of the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
and we'll also take your phone calls
at 212-279-3400.
Digital telephony.
The FBI utilizes electronic surveillance,
known as wiretaps,
in virtually every area
of its investigative responsibilities.
The telecommunications industry,
which remained virtually unchanged
for approximately 50 years,
is now rapidly changing
to address the need
for more advanced telecommunications systems,
i.e. personal communications networks,
advanced cellular integrated services
digital networks,
known as ISDN,
which has the capacity
for high-speed transmissions
of video, voice, and data.
One of the telephone telecommunication industry's
major developmental efforts
is to provide total digital connectivity
end-to-end for their subscribers
to include residential
and business communities
in the near future.
At present,
no capability exists
to intercept
ISDN transmissions.
Therefore,
the emergence of digital telecommunications technology
will preclude
the FBI
and all of law enforcement
from being able
to intercept
electronic communications,
thus,
all but eliminating
a statutorily sanctioned,
court-authorized,
and extraordinarily successful
investigative technique.
The Department of Justice
and the FBI
have been working
with the White House,
other various
administration agencies,
the telecommunications industry,
and Congress
to find
a workable solution
to this very serious problem,
which
endangers the safety
of the American public.
a legislative solution
has been developed
to ensure
that the legitimate need
for law enforcement
to lawfully intercept
communications
is met
by the telecommunication industry.
Translation,
the FBI
is nervous
about new technology
and they want
a handle on it
just like
you and I
want a handle on it.
They want to be able
to control it.
However,
the difference is
that the FBI
wants to be able
to control you
a lot more
than
you would want
to control
other people.
The FBI
wants to be able
to listen in
easily
using
the new
digital technology.
And
while
some of us
may say
that wiretapping
is fine
and dandy
for criminal
investigations
what they are
proposing here
goes much
further
than
just
simple
wiretapping.
They're proposing
to have
systems built
in
to all
future
digital
telephone
networks
and systems
and things
like that
that will
allow them
to pretty much
flip a switch
and listen
at will.
And yes,
you can say
that it'll all
be protected
by court order.
But how much
does that really mean?
Los Angeles Times,
March 7,
1992.
The FBI
contending
that rapidly
developing
telecommunications
technology
is hampering
the vital tool
of wiretapping
has proposed
legislation
Friday
that would
require the
industry
to ensure
that improvements
do not
interfere
with the ability
to secretly
record
conversations.
And
it also
proposed
that consumers
pick up
the cost
of changing
current
wiretapping
equipment
to keep
pace
with new
technology.
An FBI
official said
the expense
to consumers
could be
passed on
at a cost
of probably
less than
20 cents
on average
per month.
What a bargain.
FBI officials
maintain that
they already
have encountered
difficulties
in recording
digitally
transmitted
conversations
now used
by about
10%
of the
nation's
phones.
They
declined
however
to give
any
examples
of such
difficulties.
A comment
by
Ian Wakeman
who finds
it strange
that the
FBI
should be
tapping
into lines
directly.
He saw
an old
Cagney
and Lacey
the other
night
which had
them sitting
in a
basement
with a
breakout
box
and a
tape
recorder.
Definitive
proof
of the
obsolescence
of U.S.
police
equipment.
Here
in the
United
Kingdom
there is
this
persistent
rumor
that our
digital
exchange
has the
most
advanced
security
facilities
in the
world
allowing
tapping
of a
conversation
at the
switch
rather
than on
the
wire.
This
means
our
police
don't
have
to
get
their
hands
dirty
assuming
that
the
home
secretary
gives
permission
and
all
they
need
to
do
is
attach
a
tape
recorder
or
a
tape
drive
to
a
port
at
the
exchange.
And
this
from an
Sweden
tortsen
lift
some
years
ago
I
worked
in
Erickson's
effort
on
designing
ISDN
telephones.
One
of the
features
we
implemented
was that
in order
to
facilitate
testing
the
exchange
could
send
signals
to
set
up
loops
in
the
terminals
fairly
standard
and
leave
an
open
end
in
case
deeper
testing
was
ever
needed.
A
mechanism
for
reading
or
writing
any
data
address
on
the
terminal's
internal
system
bus
was
provided.
In
the
terminal
and
a
patch
jump
applied
to
link
it
in.
Okay,
you don't
have to
know what
that means
to understand
what is
being said
here.
Basically,
one morning
in a coffee
break
brainstorm
session,
we started
speculating
on what
could be
done
if a
feature
like this
were
abused,
say,
by the
FBI,
and we
realized
that since
all the
control
ports
of the
phone
were
regular
bus
devices,
anybody
who knew
the
address
to the
proper
latch
could send
the
instructions
to
activate
the
microphone
and
connect
it
to
a
B
channel
without
going
through
all
the
layer
3
protocol
stuff
or
the
phone's
internal
program.
Just a couple
of pokes
and presto,
the room
is bugged.
This would be
more devious
than the
normal kind
of bugging
where a line
is tapped
since it
would take
place when
there's no
phone call
going on.
So,
as a
collective act
of civil
disobedience,
you folks
out there
pay attention
because you
might be in
a position
to do
something like
this.
The
various
designers
got together
and put
in an
extra
HWN
gate
in a
strategic
location
so that
the bit
stream
from the
codec
to the
S
interface
was choked
unless
either the
receiver
was off
the hook
or the
hands-free
indicator
LED
was turned
on.
What this
basically
meant
was
that
two
latches
had to
be set
to
connect
the
phone
to
the
line
and
if
anybody
were
to
try
and
turn
the
phone
on
for
bugging
purposes
they
would
have
to
turn
on
the
LED
on
the
front
of the
phone
and
the
hope
was
this
would
be
conspicuous
enough
to
alert
anybody
in
the
room
of
course
this
didn't
prevent
bugging
of a
phone
call
but
that's
impossible
to
guard
from
without
encryption
anyway
all
exchanges
have
supervision
devices
that
can
be
abused
to
listen
in
on
conversations
but
it
helps
to have
people
that
care
about
privacy
in
positions
of
power
and
finally
from
William
Sessions
the
head
of
the
FBI
a piece
that
appeared
in
the
New York
Times
last
Friday
March
27th
he
says
digital
technology
makes
possible
the
simultaneous
transmission
of
multiple
conversations
and
other
data
over
the
same
lines
the
problem
is
that
voice
transmission
will
soon
be
replaced
by
an
endless
inseparable
stream
of
electronic
emissions
making
it
virtually
to
capture
criminal
conversations
the
federal
bureau
of
investigation
is
not
complaining
as
the
telecommunications
industry
develops
digital
technology
new
services
such as
caller
ID
are
becoming
available
to
business
and
private
customers
the
new
technology
already
has
provided
benefits
for
the
FBI
for
example
it
helped
solve
the
bombing
of
Pan Am
Flight
103
it
doesn't
go into
any more
detail
on that
unfortunately
but
I don't
know
how
caller
ID
or
digital
technology
might have
played
a role
in that
but
the
FBI
is
concerned
and
the
FBI
is
making
moves
to do
something
with us
on the
line
is
staff
counsel
of the
Electronic
Frontier
Foundation
Mike
Godwin
who speaks
to us
from his
home
in New
Hampshire
Mike
are you
there
yes
I'm
here
what
is
your
take
on
what
the
FBI
is
proposing
well
I think
a lot
of what
they say
about the
issues
is
misleading
I think
that
it's really
misleading
of
director
sessions
of the
FBI
to say
that
the new
technology
digital
telephone
technology
is going
to make
wiretapping
impossible
or close
to impossible
what it
does
do
is
create
a new
set
of
problems
for
people
who
want
to
tap
phones
but
I
don't
think
they're
insoluble
problems
I
think
one
of the
things
that
we've
found
out
in
our
own
investigations
of
this
FBI
initiative
is
that
every
technical
expert
we can
consult
says
that
the
FBI's
claims
are
overstated
that
really
the
worst
that can
be
said
about
new
advances
in
digital
telephony
is that
they make
wiretapping
more difficult
and they
make it
more difficult
perhaps in
the sense
that
sessions
refers to
it
by
making it
harder to
sort out
the signal
you want
to tap
on the
line
that you're
tapping
they also
make it
difficult
because
in order
to ensure
that you've
got the
right person
you may
have to
do your
wiretap
closer to
their house
or closer
to their
place of
business
rather than
say
flipping a
switch
at
phone
central
can you
give us
just a
scenario
here
as to
what
the
FBI
is
actually
asking
for
in
rather
simple
terms
what
features
do they
want
installed
how easy
would it be
for them
to actually
implement
this
well
we're only
guessing
but we
have
based on
what they
say
that they're
looking for
it looks
like they
want to
compel
the phone
companies
to build
in a
capability
in the
telephone
system
for
law
enforcement
agents
to be
able to
go to
the
central
telephone
office
and
listen
to a
particular
conversation
or capture
a particular
electronic
communication
so in
effect
in a
nutshell
they want
to build
tapability
into the
new
digital
telephone
system
now is
there any
such
tapability
that's already
in there
that they
could
make use
of
well
by all
accounts
you know
the technical
people I
talk to
say yes
this is
not my
area of
expertise
but
the
people
who
are
deeply
interested
in the
phone
system
already
talk to
me
about
various
ways
various
software
that's
already
in place
or software
that's
coming
online
with
switching
system
seven
that
should
enable
people
to
tap
phones
if they
have to
but the
FBI
seems to
want
something
more than
that
and it's
unclear
you know
from
the language
of their
initiative
that they
maybe
understand
all the
technical
issues
involved
in any
case
I think
it's
a problem
not just
because
on the
one hand
the FBI
doesn't
seem to
understand
all the
technical
issues
but also
because
it really
instead of
placing the
burden on
law enforcement
to keep up
with technology
it's placing
the burden
on technology
to keep
dumbed down
for the
advantages
of law
enforcement
and that's
a real
topsy-turvy
sort of
arrangement
especially
when you
consider
that we
live in
a free
society
I mean
if you
think about
it
once we
make it
easy enough
for say
any FBI
agent to
tap the
phone with
minimal
technical
expertise
and minimal
technical
help
isn't it
more or
less obvious
that non-FBI
people are
going to be
able to do
it more
easily too
I think it
is
it's interesting
you should
mention that
because also
in our studio
today is a
non-FBI person
who is a
computer hacker
fiber optic
very knowledgeable
on precisely
this kind of
thing and I'd like
to ask what
your take on
all this is
yeah I think
what the FBI
is worried about
is that they
won't be able
to tap phone
lines quite as
inexpensively as
they were able
to do in the
past and if
they're dealing
with an analog
telephone line
they can just
simply stick a
little device on
the line anywhere
they want to
and simply listen
in at a later
time
what they're
worried about
what William
Sessions was
saying about
being able to
decipher or
being able to
tell which
specific channel
say if it's a
digital link
saying which
specific time
slot is allocated
to a specific
conversation
that constantly
changes over
time but I
don't really see
what the problem
is since they
can simply record
every channel
and then go
through it later
and sort it out
so I don't see
what the problem
is
well I see
a big problem
if that's what
they're going
to be doing
they can
actually
you're saying
the capability
if it doesn't
exist already
will exist for
them to record
everything
I'm not saying
that what I'm
saying is that
it's there already
and what Mike
Godwin is just
touching upon
is that there
have been means
and methods for
the telephone
company to
perform what
they call
testing which
is in reality
allowing them to
listen in to any
kind of telephone
conversation digital
or not and this
has existed
since any
switching system
has come into
existence
but it's never
been in the
hands of the
government
yeah this is
true
usually it's
never been
allowable
at least to
my knowledge
by law
enforcement
officials
because it's
internal
proprietary
phone company
means and
methods
that are
implemented
within the
systems themselves
and are usually
not accessible
normally to an
outsider
are you talking
about things
like Elmoth
not specifically
I mean that's
an old example
the mechanized
loop testing
doing a trouble
verification
you're going to
have to explain
that a little
bit further
since you brought
it up
yeah I'll go
into that in a
second
I'm talking
about stuff
that's elemental
in the switching
equipment itself
and not simply
some sort of
testing system
which that would
fall under the
category of being
what I'm saying
is that there
are subsystems
which are elemental
to the switching
systems themselves
which are put in
by the manufacturers
to provide some
sort of testing
by the switching
control centers
and by the workers
in the central
office
now give us
an example
of how such
a system
would work
well very
simply
for instance
even on
a digital switch
it's common
knowledge
at least amongst
people such
as myself
that there does
exist systems
such as
switching control
center
talk and monitor
circuits
which allow
an individual
to connect
to a piece
of equipment
which is part
of the switch
itself
and would allow
you to drop
in on a
telephone conversation
and you can
do this remotely
yeah doing
this remotely
in most cases
and that's just
a simple example
and that's using
something that's
part of the switch
when you say
drop in on a
phone conversation
you mean without
any noise at all
without being heard
and that's something
that currently exists
in digital phones
and digital phone
switches are in place
in quite a few areas
in Manhattan
and around the country
yeah I'm not talking
about a digital
telephone system
end to end
I'm talking about
a digital switching
system which may
or may not have
digital phones
more often than not
they're analog phones
like the phones
that us normal
people use
so just give me
an example here
if I was somebody
that wanted to
listen to somebody's
conversation
and I knew they
had a digital
phone switch
and a good portion
of New York City
people have digital
phone switches
would I call up
a particular computer
system type in
their number
and it's as simple
as that
well it's not
it's not exactly
that simple
and it's not only
if I have all the
passwords though
it's that simple
well okay
along those lines
and also I might
want to touch
on the fact
that it's not
just digital
switching systems
I'm talking about
all switching systems
that are under
computer control
whether analog
or digital
any switch
that's under
computer control
is more often
than not
going to have
a facility
to do this
what I'm talking
about is
without
I'll try to be
I'll try to be
vague at least
so I don't
further incriminate
myself
but as
someone could
hypothetically
enter into
a telephone
company
switching computer
and what they
could do
theoretically
there's numerous
ways that you
can accomplish
such a feat
as listening
to a conversation
you could check
to see that a
phone is in use
and to see
who they're
connected with
you can further
be able to
set up a
routing code
or set up a
telephone number
that would
connect to a
routing code
which would
allow you
to dial in
to an actual
internal element
of the telephone
company switching
system
and being able
to access
this piece
of equipment
or subsystem
you would have
some way
of signaling
to the equipment
the actual
telephone line
that you wish
to monitor
and you would
in essence
monitor it
and it's
as simple
as that
now
I'm making
it sound
simple
someone who
would know
how to do
this
and would know
the necessary
commands to issue
it may seem
trivial
now as far
as is it
possible to
store these
particular
conversations
and come back
to them later
well as far
as far as
storing
if you're
listening to
them in
essence
you could
just record
them on
a tape
recorder
as far as
storing them
digitally
that would
take a bit
more
and it's
really not
that necessary
but do you
think it's
something that
could happen
in the future
oh sure
no there's
no doubt
it can be
done in
numerous ways
I can think
of just
offhand
Mike
getting back
to what
the FBI
is proposing
what is
the position
of the
Electronic
Frontier
Foundation
on this
we believe
unequivocally
that this
is the
wrong
approach
for FBI
to try
and solve
its
investigation
problems
whether
they're
real
or
imagined
I think
as
fiber optic
illustrates
some of
the problems
the FBI
claims to
be having
or claims
to be
anticipating
may be
imaginary
problems
but to
the extent
that they're
real problems
the approach
throughout history
has been
throughout the
history of
the FBI
and throughout
the history
of law
enforcement
has been
that the
law enforcement
people carry
the burden
as part of
their mission
to keep up
with the
technology
and develop
new ways
to cope
with technological
advance
the wrong
approach
is to
say
no we're
going to
build in
special
facilities
of some
sort
to make
the FBI's
job
easier
to take
the burden
off
them
and say
put it
on the
phone
companies
I think
in a way
FBI
is trying
to divert
attention
from the
real issues
here
because they
often stress
on the one
hand
that they're
not seeking
any expansion
of their
legal authority
to seek
wiretaps
which of course
is true
they're not
and on the
other hand
they say
well this
would be
very cheap
to the
individual
rate payer
which
possibly
may be
true
but the
issue
isn't
really
whether
the FBI
has legal
authority
to get
wiretaps
or whether
rate payers
have to
pay 20
cents a
month
the issue
is how
are we
going to
design
our
communication
system
we're
designing
a
communication
system
not a
surveillance
system
good point
very good
point and it
does seem to
be what we're
moving into
is designing
surveillance
systems for
our citizens
I think
that things
are fine
right now
the stuff
that fiber
mentions
is stuff
that could
be used
in surveillance
perhaps
but it's
essentially
I mean
it's built
into the
system
for the
purpose
of maintaining
the
communication
system
for maintaining
the quality
of the lines
for troubleshooting
phone problems
and so on
what FBI
wants is
something in
addition to
that
they want
a layer
of
technology
whether it's
hardware
or software
or both
that will
enable
surveillance
just for
its own
sake
and unfortunately
we seem to
be at the
stage where
it's quite
possible to
design that
rather simply
the question
is will
the consumers
allow this
to happen
what's kind
of ironic
is that most
people seem
to be upset
not so much
by the
surveillance
but by the
fact that
they're being
required to
pay for it
and I think
perhaps if the
FBI had not
said that
particular part
of it
maybe they
wouldn't be
facing all
this backlash
from consumers
well you know
we'd have to
pay for it
anyway right
that's true
because FBI
is funded by
appropriations
that are
allocated from
our tax dollars
so no matter
how the FBI
decides to
solve its
investigations
problems
we're going
to have to
pay for it
the difference
is how
you know
recently the
FBI had
approved by
Congress
80 million
dollars over
five years
to keep
up with
telecommunications
advances
but you see
that process
the process
by which
that money
was approved
is the
democratic
process
I mean
it has to
pass through
Congress
and pass
through the
review of our
representatives
in Congress
what FBI
wants to see
happen
and this is
one aspect
of the proposal
that we really
haven't brought
up yet
is to have
all of this
happen in
closed
to the public
FCC hearings
both the
imposition
of rates
on the
rate payers
and the
specifics
of the
implementation
of this
wiretapping
capability
are all
going to be
decided on
in private
closed to the
public
FCC hearings
well
that's not
once you start
doing things
like that
you start
taking policy
decisions
of that
sort
that really
affect
everybody's
phone
out of the
public eye
you know
you're
undermining
a democratic
society
and the
democratic
process
it does
seem as if
as new
technologies
are emerging
that we
seem to be
focusing way
too much
on how
we can
watch our
fellow
citizens
whether it
be through
surveillance
cameras
telephones
that can
listen to
you
ATMs
that watch
whatever you
do
and all
kinds of
electronic
transactions
that say
where you
are
and what
you did
it can
be a lot
of fun
technology
can be
but it
can also
be very
inhibiting
and we
have to be
careful not
to step
in the wrong
direction
let me give
out the
telephone number
here we are
taking listener
phone calls
at 212-279-3400
program is off
the hook
we're speaking
with Mike
Godwin
staff council
for the
Electronic
Frontier
Foundation
and Fiber
Optic is
here in the
studio as
well talking
about various
technical aspects
of today's
existing phone
systems and
God only
knows what's
in store for
us in
future phone
systems
let's take a
couple of
questions from
the telephone
good evening
you're on the
air
hello
go ahead
glad you're on
I was sick
when I heard
they tried to
take you off
in any case
in Idaho
I guess about
10 years ago
there was a
public referendum
on the ballot
and the gist
of the ballot
and the gist
of the argument
was they wanted
to be able
to have your
telephone be
switched on
at will
in case of
emergency
because of the
snow storms
and stuff like
this
this was on the
ballot and
apparently the
folks in Idaho
if I'm not
mistaken said
yes
and that's
in the way
right now
the next thing
is that the
New York City
Police Department
through a friend
of mine
who is a police
officer
said that
the criminal
investigation
division
of the New
York City
Police Department
headquarters
is in the
New York
telephone
buildings
period
okay
do you have
any question
or
no
that's
just
sharing that
a couple
of factual
bits of
information
okay
thanks for
sharing them
with us
I think
fiber can
confirm this
or not
but my
understanding
is that
telephones
can be
turned on
remotely
without
ringing
the
residents
in any
case
is that
right
normal
telephones
well
the mic's
not on
yeah it is
oh it is
okay
well
a device
since a
telephone line
is just a
pair of wires
a device
can be
connected
to the
line
which may
reside
within the
home
so that
when ringing
voltage
is sent
down the
line
48 volts
DC
is sent
down the
line
this device
could activate
itself
every time
the phone
rings
and in
essence
turn on
a bug
in the
house
but you
have to
physically
install
you have to
physically
put it
there
there's no
way you can
make a
phone pick
up remotely
it has to be
physically and
mechanically
picked up
unless it's
designed within
the system
to do that
there are some
institutional phone
systems that you
can turn on
a microphone
on a phone
remotely
oh sure
yeah
I'm talking
about a
normal
consumer's
telephone
the circuit
has to be
physically
completed by
you lifting
up the
receiver
off the
cradle
well if
we continue
going in this
direction though
it could one
day be conceivable
that the rules of
telephones change
you have to get a
particular kind of
phone that does
allow for this
microphone to be
turned on whenever
they feel like
turning it on
I think that's
I think that's
exactly the
slippery slope
that we're
looking at
because once
it becomes
a burden
once it becomes
the obligation
of the
telecommunications
industry
to design
their technology
in any way
to cater
to the needs
of law
enforcement
why not
pass a law
requiring phones
to be designed
a certain way
it is a slippery
slope
no question
about that
let's go to
another phone
call
good evening
you're on the
air
hi
yeah go ahead
this is Mr. Quayle
brain damage
what's on your
mind
do you think
that
do you think
that if
George Bush
oh dear
I guess
our phone system
is more intelligent
than I gave it
credit for
good evening
you're on the
air
the key word
search for
George Bush
go ahead
oh yeah
I thought he was
talking
I'd like to
make a couple
points
it seems to
me that if
people
if we go to
a digitalized
phone system
I mean it
seems like
it would be
easier than
ever for
people who
really do
want to
conceal their
conversations
to get
phones which
you can
encrypt the
conversation
digitally
which is
very very
difficult for
them to
decipher
you know
I know
they offer
them now
and I
suspect that
as things
get cheaper
to produce
you know
you have
these big
VLSI
chips
it would be
cheaper to
make phones
that you can
encrypt your
conversations on
and use
random patterns
or whatever
the other thing
is you know
talking about
having a phone
that you can
pick up
or activate
remotely
people don't
realize now
most phones
do not use
the old
network and
ringer stuff
they use
you know
chips that
you buy
from Motorola
or someplace
and it
wouldn't be
so difficult
in this
kind of
surveillance
sensitive
society
to make
a
you know
for these
guys to
collaborate
and say
listen
why don't
we just
have a
little
undocumented
feature
that says
if you
ring the
phone
and then
present this
tone to the
chip
it will
activate the
thing
without
telling the
listener
sell these
things to
people who
have no
knowledge of
it
I don't see
why that would
be such a big
problem
well there's all
kinds of hidden
features and
things existing
today
right I mean
there's lots of
undocumented features
and computer chips
that people are
always looking for
you know
even like the
HP 95 LX
already people have
begun to hack it
and they find all
these little
undocumented features
so why not
well now I'm
more interested
in the
digitally
encrypting
conversations
are there
phones out
there that
allow for this
to happen
that are
available to
the consumer
they're available
now but they're
really expensive
but there's no
reason why they
couldn't be made
much more cheaply
and I think if
you're going to
have a direct
digital connection
end to end
it would be much
simpler you know
than actually
there's no big
deal you just
you know
transcribe these
digital pulse
trains into
analog tones
like a modem
you know and you
shoot that over the
line and the
other end they
it demodems
it so now it
would be even
easier and you
have better
bandwidth I
mean right now
you can buy
from Motorola
a analog to
digital converter
that uses I
think three or
four bits it's
sort of like
speech quality
that military
communications use
for secure
communications so
what would be the
big deal you
know you need a
few support chips
to generate lots
of different random
codes but you
know theoretically
you could if you
really wanted to be
sophisticated you
could have this
thing synchronized
with the one on
the other end
and generate you
know it would
just change codes
at random and
it would communicate
with the other
unit so you
could have a very
very secure system
now with with
digitalized phones
let me ask Mike
Godwin if he
thinks it's legal
for people to be
using phones to
encode their
conversations
whether I think
it's legal of
course it's legal
there's no there's
no problem with
doing that now
I think the
hazard is down
the road because
let's face it
commercially you
know barring say
legislation by
Congress inspired
by the FBI and
the Department of
Justice
in people's
handsets is
going to be
widely commercially
available and
it'll first be used
by businesses and
increasingly you
know the economies
of scale are
going to reduce
the prices on
these units and
everybody's going
to potentially have
them but imagine
this you know once
once we've
established a
precedent in the
law for the law
enforcement agencies
to come and
dictate the shape
of our telecommunications
technology then
it's really only an
incremental change
to say well in
addition to building
capability into the
phones we also
insist that we're
going to outlaw
point to point
encryption based on
cheap you know
commercial encryption
schemes built into
people's handsets
and I think that's a
real slippery slope
because what they'll
say what they're
saying now is we
want to have
tap ability in
digital phone systems
to preserve our
right to preserve our
already established
statutory right to
tap phones what will
happen is in the
future let's say they
get that then when
handset based or
cheap available
commercial point to
point encryption schemes
become available the
FBI can come back and
say look we're just
trying to preserve our
investment in the
telephone you know
in having
tap ability in our
digital phone lines
and you know
there's it's important
that we not lose the
telephone company's
investment in adding
this feature to us so
we're going to outlaw
that too all right
let's take another
phone call 212-279-3400
good evening you're on
go ahead you're on
all right um one
thing concerning
directly to this is
the uh a question in
lots of magazines i see
ads for uh tapping
indicators that tell you
you know if your line's
being tapped i was
wondering to what
extent those are uh
those work also you
know the new collect
call computer with new
york telephone right uh
the one we did an
expose on a couple of
weeks ago yeah i mean
that's a great trick you
know that's a good
positive note about how
you can trick the phone
system just tell the
person that your number
instead of uh your name
well yeah except that
there are some that will
charge you anyway and
you got to be careful of
those but i think and
also one final thing uh
the new area codes you
know they said they're
running out bronx is
having one of the last
few you know uh by in
the summer have they
found a new system yet
okay i'll uh i'll answer
that question uh in just
a moment thanks for uh
thanks for calling in the
area codes uh the bronx is
not getting a a new area
code they're being added to
the 718 area code that's
later uh i believe over the
summer this year a new
area code will be added
917 the first in the
nation ever to encompass
only things like pagers
cellular phones uh that
kind of thing it'll be
interesting to see how
that works in a couple of
years however area codes
will no longer look like
area codes uh there will
no longer be a one or a
zero uh necessarily as
the middle digit in other
words any three digits
virtually can be an area
code so that will that
will make sure that we
don't run out of them for
a while that's in a
couple of years that's
going to happen i think
fiber optic wanted to uh
answer uh the the
gentleman's uh first
question on the uh
effectiveness of those
tap detectors are they
effective at all yeah uh
so as far as these
companies manufacturing
devices to detect taps i
think they're just playing
on the ignorance of and
fear of the general public
first of all consider
who's going to be
tapping you of all
people whether you're
you're a candidate for
being tapped by anyone
in particular then i just
want to touch on the fact
that most of these taps
these tap detectors all
they're going to do is
is try to detect some
sort of loss in in
voltage on the line as
opposed to what it would
normally be if you were
engaged in the conversation
as far as being able to
detect if there was
possibly a third party on
the line as far as that
goes if someone wanted to
tap your phone they
could do it and you'd
never know so if you're
even considering buying
any of the any of these
supposed tap detecting
devices save yourself the
trouble i i often uh i'm
talking to people on the
telephone and we hear
clicks and invariably
people say oh those clicks
mean the phone is being
tapped but i um i tend to
think that if somebody
really wanted to tap the
phone they'd be able to do
it without making any
noise whatsoever much
noise and i i you know i
pretty much say that uh
it's all those silent
periods that you should be
worried about because
that's when they could be
tapping you and you would
never hear it all right
let's take another phone
call good evening you're
on the air yes good
evening um you know you
seem so concentrated on
the telephone uh technology
but i'm just wondering
it's april fool's day is it
possible we could get a
lie detector portable like a
lie detector and when
people are lying you would
go red or something rather
than green you know i mean
then you'd know what you're
dealing with well i'm sure
that's a great idea i'm i'm
glad that uh that you
called up to give the fbi
that idea and it wouldn't
be april fool's day without
hearing from that particular
caller uh let's take another
call good evening yeah go
ahead okay is this bai yes
it is you're on the air how
you doing okay um first of
all last week you said that
you would uh give out the
800 number for the uh psychic
hotline uh yes you got me on
that one however i'm going to
open this one up to uh to the
listeners uh as a as a write-in
campaign on this one only
because uh there are a few
people around here that seem
to think it's a bad idea to
give out uh 800 numbers that
can charge you 120 dollars just
by hitting a few touch tones on
your phone okay uh i happen to
think and it's always been my
my thought on this that uh
knowledge is something that
should be shared and if giving
out a phone number causes chaos
and that's chaos that deserves to
be caused that's my position but
i want to know what people think
before i go out giving giving a
number okay uh it will be
published in the next issue of
2600 either way so uh even if we
don't do it here we'll we'll do it
there okay that's the secret to
jerry brown's 800 number that's
that's yeah that's something
how he's been keeping his campaign
alive actually uh this is a lot
more nefarious but we'll get into
it later my second point was that
concerns the turning on of phones
remotely i work under a roam system
oh boy i found that if i dialed nine
which lets me out the area code
without the one and three digits for
let's say an exchange and one extra
digit wait 30 seconds um i will
connect with a number in that
exchange for 30 seconds i get
listening time i've done this
repeatedly uh to make sure that i'm
not gone crazy or anything like that
i've had two co-workers tried the
same experiment and we have turned
on mics remotely all over the place
listen to all types of phone calls i
can even hear a customer at a pay
phone drop in a coin i'll hear the uh
the tones generated and i'll listen to
conversations i get 30 seconds worth
of listening uh after 60 seconds this
feature terminates you know you know
that reminds me of an old northern
telecom bug and it's possible that
that might be something that that
that you're experiencing not related
to the realm but then again it's
possible that it is related to the
realm what without giving away too
much specifics uh where where are you
located approximately uh manhattan in
manhattan i definitely like to uh speak
further about this uh off air because
um we're investigating things like that
okay and that's something that we're
certainly uh interested in pursuing
okie doke thanks for sharing it with
us
our number is 212-279-3400
good evening you're on the air
uh yes uh i'm thinking of buying a
computer i don't want to spend too
much money but i want to buy a good
computer do you know any uh any
suggestions yes listen to the personal
computer show it's on right after this
program good evening good evening go
ahead
good evening this is dave rothstein in
long beach how am i uh i don't know
how are you oh i'm just killing all my
monitors here okay okay uh i had a
question uh there was a network calling
uh having a feature called one person
one number i believe it was cellular one
doing this the the b carrier and what
this would be is that you'd have one
telephone number for your home phone
business and a cellular unit and wondering
if you heard of this i've heard mention
of it mike have you heard anything
specific about this uh yeah i've heard of
it uh uh there are very occasionally
uh different telephone companies
including cellular one come up with the
idea of a of a single phone number for
everybody so that regardless of where you
were uh regardless of you know if you
moved you'd still have the same phone
number and rather than rely on sort of a
geographically based area code system and
so on the computer would just route route it
to you route a call to you wherever you
were uh the problem is of course what
happens when you break up with your
girlfriend there's no way you can stop
her from calling you right because no
matter what you can move away and she'll
still have your phone number that's true
but uh but you can block her can't you
well you know i guess you'd have to build
in blocking if you had uh that particular
system it seems like making phone calls
is becoming i don't know of any plans
uh to implement such a system and i think
that uh there is concern by people who
want to preserve anonymity by for example
changing the phone numbers but with this
kind of a system uh where you carry the
same phone number with you all the time
people always know it's making a phone
call becomes a lot more combative you
know it's uh you have to protect yourself
against certain people all the time and
uh send them messages before you even
deign to pick up the phone uh it's it's
really changing all the rules caller id is
uh you know it has nice features to it
but it really is changing the way we use
the phone completely certainly we got say
of apple computer made observed uh with
regard to isdn and caller id um he said
this at mac world back in 1990 in san
francisco that uh the whole oddly enough
the reason one of the main arguments for
pitching isdn that had been used up to
then was that it would allow the
implementation of caller id so that if you
got a call from your mother-in-law you
could look and see that it is coming from
your mother-in-law and not answer the phone
well as john lewis say immediately
responded by noting that how hard is it
going to be for your mother-in-law to
walk down the street and use a pay phone
that's uh that's something uh fiber optic you've
got a comment on this yeah i'd just like to
note that uh more often than not people are
trying to peddle other services by combining
them with other ones and saying that they're
directly related and caller id has absolutely
nothing whatsoever to do with isdn absolutely
right absolutely right thanks for the call
okay i have another question for you all right
make it quick okay uh pseudo random codes how are
they generated how do they work i've seen them all
over the place they're always talking about
these codes that encrypt uh information you're
talking about the things in the new york
times uh well i haven't uh seen those
specifically uh mentioned okay uh handy talkies
and the like fiber you want to take that one
i don't i don't specifically know what he's
talking about okay pseudo random codes
generated by chips so that two devices would
be on say the same frequencies are just
talking about about uh analog encryption of
voice over over over a jumping carrier wave oh
okay i see yeah i've heard i've heard stuff to
the effect of that and as as far as see once
i'm just guessing because i'm not specifically
familiar with this but i'm just guessing that
if uh if both places say you and and some
partner that you're communicating with are
somehow synchronized and jumping from along
some carrier frequency use synchronized and
using the same means of encryption that uh i'd
have to think that it would be rather hard for
someone to be able to to know at what point in
the jumping that you are if you're constantly
moving back and forth but then on the other
hand i'd have to think that uh if someone were
doing this and two people were able to be
synchronized i don't see why a third person
wouldn't also be able to synchronize with the
other two let's uh try and fit in one more
phone call good evening you're on hi um i i think
y'all may be barking up the wrong tree i i don't
know the it's my understanding the nsa has the capability to monitor uh phone
calls at the drop of any keyword or any uh sequence of numbers um by using their
it's a computer they acquired in 1982 i think it's called the crate 2000
i'm glad somebody brought that up uh well uh who wants to take that one
mike uh you know i hear that too but i can't verify it
well first of all is it not true that the nsa i mean do they do domestic work or is it simply
international well they're purportedly doing uh you know primarily international work but as you
know and one of the one of that includes uh monitoring uh overseas traffic that originates
domestically so that includes a large amount of domestic jurisdiction uh whether you know
what the nsa's capability really is for uh you know tapping uh uh telephone communications or
other kinds of communications based on keyword searches and so on uh is a question i can't
answer uh nsa is a pretty secret agency and and i can't claim to know a lot about it but it would
be uh certainly scary if the fbi had such technology in their hands i'm sure it's capable uh they are if the
post office is capable of translating virtually any kind of handwriting uh and and delivering it
uh with a computer i'm sure it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility to listen to almost any
voice and decrypt certain words and flag those particular calls well voice recognition and handwriting
mission pose you know fundamentally different sets of problems uh even though you know to you know to
the person who's not having to solve either of those problems they may seem similar i don't think
you're very similar it depends really on where our priorities are because if we devote a lot of
attention to certain things like getting a man on the moon we'll do it uh it all depends on what we
think is important we're just about out of time mike i want to give you the opportunity to give uh
addresses phone numbers people can write to and also how they can contact the electronic frontier
foundation as well well okay if you have uh let me tell you a little bit about eff if you have
questions about civil liberties on the electronic frontier and that includes uh uh for telephone
users and computer users and network users and so on uh you should write the eff write the electronic
frontier foundation at uh 155 second street cambridge massachusetts 02141 uh if you're having a particular
emergency and you need a very quick response you can call me at uh 617-864-0665 and ask for mike
all right mike i want to thank you very much for uh for chatting with us tonight fiber optic want
to thank you for coming by and answering some of those technical questions and that's going to
pretty much do it for off the hook tonight
we'll be back again next week with some more exciting news on high tech and how it relates to us
as individual people stay tuned for the personal computer show here on wbai new york good night
now i can't make a cough
it couldn't get much worse
but if they could they would
bum dilly bum for the best it's back from worst
i hope that's understood
bum dilly bum
Tutor
it's out 175
it's out
music
it's out
and
ad