From: "Harold G. Peach Jr."
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 15:47:02 +0000
Subject: Letter to Tuzain, et. al. (FAQ)

Q. Isn't listening to radio communications, including cellular, an
invasion of the participant's privacy?

A. No. The public's expectation of privacy when using unencrypted
radios or cellular telephones is unrealistic and rooted in
misconceptions about the nature of radio. Unlike wire and fiber optic
mediums, which are privately owned and truly private, the radio
spectrum is a public medium.  Radio is public in that it is a public
resource, like a park or street and, it is also public in that all
activities carried out there are done so publicly. When people use
commonly accepted methods of radio communication (whether analog or
digital) that do not include encryption, there is no reasonable
expectation of privacy.  No law can change this fact. Communicating
via radio is metaphorically the same as shouting across a crowded
room.


Q. But don't the nation's telephone users have a right to privacy?

A. Yes. Callers have a reasonable expectation to privacy when using
the telephone.  However, when those telephone conversations move from
private mediums to the public medium of radio the nation's telephone
companies have an obligation to protect the content of those
conversations through encryption.  Only then does true privacy exist.


Q. How can congress act to ensure the privacy rights of the public are
protected?

A. By passing legislation requiring telephone companies to encrypt
wireless telephone communications.  And, in the interim, by requiring
that callers be warned when their privacy can not be ensured because
their conversation will be traveling unencrypted over radio.


Q. Isn't encryption expensive?

A. Encryption is neither prohibitively expensive nor technically
impractical.  But even if encryption were not feasible, it does not
change the fact that without it, radio communication privacy can not
be expected.


Q. What good is encryption?  Won't someone always be able to break any
cipher invented?

A. It is true that for any technical method of concealing something
there will always be someone who can break it, but this is a separate
issue.  When someone takes reasonable steps to encrypt their
communication they have a reasonable expectation to privacy.  When
someone breaks that encryption and listens to the communication, they
invade the person's privacy and violate existing laws.  Not because
they intercepted the signal, but because they broke an encrypted
communication to which they were not a party. Metaphorically, this is
equivalent to holding a glass to the wall or opening some else's mail.


Q. Even if we acknowledge that encryption is the best solution,
isn't banning scanners a simpler way to solve the problem?

A. Scanners are radio receivers that can be programmed to listen for
activity on several frequencies. Even if outlawed, it does not require
an engineering degree or a high degree of electronic knowledge to
build a radio receiver so we should never assume outlawing their
manufacture or sale will prevent people from obtaining them.  Even a
television set can receive cellular telephone calls!But the question
misses the point.  Banning radio receivers to prevent the monitoring
of radio communications is metaphorically equivalent to requiring
people to ignore a public conversation taking place before them.
Common sense tells you this won't work.


Q. Aren't radio hobbyists really just high tech voyeurs,
eavesdroppers, or, as the Cellular Telephone Industry Association has
called them, "electronic stalkers?"

A. No.  Is it unethical to listen to two people yelling at each other
across a crowded room?  Is it voyeurism to observe the signals of a
coach at a ball game?  Radio hobbyists are ordinary people sitting on
the sidelines of the public radio spectrum, watching and listening to
the events unfolding before them.


Q. If the radio spectrum is truly public, why do we have licensing and
auctions?

A. The Federal Communications Commission only licenses radio
transmitters, not receivers.  It does this to ensure the orderly use
of a limited resource - the radio spectrum.  However, neither licenses
nor spectrum auctions convey ownership of a frequency or band, they
only convey permission to transmit over the resource.Reception of
radio signals does not interfere with the orderly use of a frequency
or band so no licensing is required. Restrictions on radio reception
traditionally occur only in countries with repressive forms of
government.


Q. Do radio hobbyists support the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act?

A. The ECPA protects many forms of communication from unauthorized
eavesdropping.  Everyone agrees with its provisions involving private
mediums such as wire or fiber optic cable.  It is only the radio
provisions of the act, included as a "paper tiger" to primarily
benefit the cellular telephone industry, that most radio hobbyists
consider bad and potentially dangerous law.