34 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981Copyright © 2015 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.The Telecom Digest for Sep 11, 2015
| ||||||||||||
| The fundamentalist seeks to bring down a great deal more than buildings. Such people are against, to offer just a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, womens rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex. These are tyrants, not Muslims ... The fundamentalist believes that we believe in nothing. In his worldview, he has his absolute certainties, while we are sunk in sybaritic indulgences. To prove him wrong, we must first know that he is wrong. We must agree on what matters: kissing in public places, bacon sandwiches, disagreement, cutting-edge fashion, literature, generosity, water, a more equitable distribution of the world's resources, movies, music, freedom of thought, beauty, love. These will be our weapons. Not by making war but by the unafraid way we choose to live shall we defeat them. How to defeat terrorism? Don't be terrorized. Don't let fear rule your life. |
| Salman Rushdie |
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.
| Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 05:34:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Phil Smith III <phsiii@gmail.com> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Privacy - cell vs. landline Message-ID: <bbdf9f64-f7a5-4e9e-bb50-ab0f1cb001dd@googlegroups.com> A novelist friend asks: Is it true that landlines are more secure than cell phones -- e.g., if my characters want to discuss something they wouldn't want The Authorities to ever know they'd discussed? And I didn't know the answer, figured folks here would. I replied: "Depends on your definition fo "secure". Is anyone trying to tap the phone? or is this random data-gathering? both generate metadata galore; carriers may record more detail about cell calls than landline, not sure." And she replied: "This'd be random data-gathering." So...what do y'all think? Is landline metadata more protected by virtue of the historical utility nature of the traditional landline carriers? Or less stored, since such usage is metered less? ISTR something called "MUDs", which I thought was Municipal Unit Details or some such, but Googling doesn't find it, so maybe that was from fiction. |
| Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:54:28 -0400 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Privacy - cell vs. landline Message-ID: <20150910145428.GB9854@telecom.csail.mit.edu> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 05:34:24AM -0700, Phil Smith III wrote: > So...what do y'all think? Is landline metadata more protected by > virtue of the historical utility nature of the traditional landline > carriers? Or stored less often, since such usage is metered less? ISTR > something called "MUDs", which I thought was Municipal Unit Details or > some such, but Googling doesn't find it, so maybe that was from > fiction. The "historical utility nature" of wireline carriers was due more to technical limitations than to regulations: cellular exchanges were built after reliable network-based data transfer methods were available, so cell carriers were never burdened with the electro- mechanical infrastructure that the baby Bells were using until well into the 1990's. In decades past, there was a big differnce between some "landline" and cellular call data, caused by the need to transfer Call Detail Records created at older electro-mechanical central offices to centralized billing systems before it could be tallied. Since the data was either punched into paper tapes, or recorded on IBM-type reel-to-reel magnetic tapes, there was a large time delay before it could be made available to law enforcement officers. There was also, of course, reason to limit the amount of data recorded, since too much data would have overloaded the AMA (Automatic Message Accounting) systems, and that's one of the reasons why "Unlimited" local calling was offered in the first place. Now, almost all traffic is supervised using a packet data switching network called SS7 (Signalling System #7), and that means that any government agency which wants to gather "pen" data only needs to sip the call-control traffic which is transitting the SS7 Signal Transfer Points (STPs), and sample the calling/called numbers from within the packets. However, not all cellular metadata is handled through SS7, and the stuff that isn't has more information in it, i.e., the identity of the cell site which is handling the call at any moment. That means that the cellular call data tells an investigator more-or-less where the cellular phone was during the call. The LUDs are Local Usage Details, and they are the call records of specific phone numbers. Depending on the company which generates them, and what state(s) the calls are completed from and to, the LUDs might be gathered at a locel (Class 5) central office, or via traffic monitoriing systems such as Hewlett-Packard's AcceSS7 (which sips SS7 data at the STP sites), or at a tandem office owned by an Inter-LATA carrier, or via the cellular carriers' proprietary systems. Long story short: "pen" (i.e., call usage) data has been available to government watchers for a very long time. The only thing which has changed is how long it takes a cop to get hold of it after a call is completed. Bill -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) |
| Date: 10 Sep 2015 12:53:35 -0400 From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Privacy - cell vs. landline Message-ID: <msscif$t7e$1@panix2.panix.com> Phil Smith III <phsiii@gmail.com> wrote: > >Is it true that landlines are more secure than cell phones -- e.g., if >my characters want to discuss something they wouldn't want The >Authorities to ever know they'd discussed? In the case of Joe Evesdropper, there was a time in the eighties and nineties when cellphones were very easy to eavesdrop on and were effectively open. The industry responded to this by railroading through the Electronic Communications Privacy Act which made it illegal to listen to them. At some point it became clear that making laws wasn't actually going to prevent people from doing anything, and various other factors forced cellphone providers to encrypted digital signals which pretty effectively prevent evesdropping. (Although we still have the disaster of the ECPA in force). So... there was a time when cellphones were easy to listen to with fairly inexpensive equipment, but this is no longer the case. Now... that said... if you are talking about the Authorities rather than just some random evesdropper, then both cellphones and landlines are very readily tapped. Just takes a friendly judge to sign a piece of paper and they can listen to anything they want. And to get call records showing who called whom when no longer seems to even require that. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
| Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:43:34 -0400 From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@frontier.com> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Privacy - cell vs. landline Message-ID: <k244vatntkkc6m11d75di88jndpa09ked8@4ax.com> On 10 Sep 2015 12:53:35 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >Phil Smith III <phsiii@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>Is it true that landlines are more secure than cell phones -- e.g., if >>my characters want to discuss something they wouldn't want The >>Authorities to ever know they'd discussed? > >In the case of Joe Evesdropper, there was a time in the eighties and >nineties when cellphones were very easy to eavesdrop on and were >effectively open. The industry responded to this by railroading >through the Electronic Communications Privacy Act which made it >illegal to listen to them. > >At some point it became clear that making laws wasn't actually going >to prevent people from doing anything, and various other factors >forced cellphone providers to encrypted digital signals which pretty >effectively prevent evesdropping. (Although we still have the >disaster of the ECPA in force). > >So... there was a time when cellphones were easy to listen to with >fairly inexpensive equipment, but this is no longer the case. > >Now... that said... if you are talking about the Authorities rather >than just some random evesdropper, then both cellphones and landlines >are very readily tapped. Just takes a friendly judge to sign a piece >of paper and they can listen to anything they want. And to get call >records showing who called whom when no longer seems to even require >that. > >--scott First of all cell phones use radio, so conversations can be recorded. While modern systems do use encryption techniques, merely recording the radio signal allows for extensive code cracking efforts (that may take a long time to actually crack things, but given enough time it can be done). There is nothing that can be done to make any radio signal absolutely secure, you can only make it computationally and time intensive to do. Usually that discourages all but the most persistant eavesdroppers. If you have a handoff to another cell that can complicate matters and require mutliple receivers. Cell sites are connected to the switch using normal telco transmission systems, so tapping into those is another way to get the info. All switches in the modern era have a "service evaluation" port which is where the authorities can attach the recorder for the wire tap. Several years ago there was a requirement added that said the service evaluation point for a given phone had to be at one georgraphical location, a move that enabled/simplified wiretapping cell phones (Think of a NYC cell phone being used in California to call Arizona. The call normally isn't routed through NYC, but if a wiretap is authorized, it is made available in NYC). So the short answer is that no form of telephony will allow you absolute privacy in any communication, if the government (or a persistant eavesdropper) wants to get a hold of it. Of course that requires a warrant for government authorities, but we do have some secret courts that issue those and the user likely will not know about it. Internet communication also can be intercepted or obtained from the service providers' servers. Bottom line is that if your really want to keep a secret, meet in person down by the railroad tracks in a rural area in the dead of night under a new moon... Eric Tappert |
| Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:31:43 +1000 From: David Clayton <dc33box-usenet2@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Privacy - cell vs. landline Message-ID: <pan.2015.09.10.23.31.40.43355@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au> On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 05:34:24 -0700, Phil Smith III wrote: > A novelist friend asks: > > Is it true that landlines are more secure than cell phones -- e.g., if my > characters want to discuss something they wouldn't want The Authorities to > ever know they'd discussed? > > And I didn't know the answer, figured folks here would. I replied: > > "Depends on your definition fo "secure". Is anyone trying to tap the > phone? or is this random data-gathering? both generate metadata > galore; carriers may record more detail about cell calls than > landline, not sure." > > And she replied: > > "This'd be random data-gathering." > > So...what do y'all think? Is landline metadata more protected by virtue of > the historical utility nature of the traditional landline carriers? Or > less stored, since such usage is metered less? ISTR something called > "MUDs", which I thought was Municipal Unit Details or some such, but > Googling doesn't find it, so maybe that was from fiction. The data available from cell handsets is far more than simply calls. Cell handsets are essentially personal tracking stations which can be used to record your movements and the data can be used for all sorts of nefarious purposes from general government and commercial snooping to criminal use such as analysing patterns for potential crimes such as house break-ins and kidnappings etc. That is the sort of data collection people should be concerned about. -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. |
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit educational service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
| Contact information: |
Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 339-364-8487 bill at horne dot net |
| Subscribe: | telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom |
| Unsubscribe: | telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom |
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Copyright © 2015 E. William Horne. All rights reserved.
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself. Thank you!
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization.