_________________________________________________________________ Who's On The Line? Cellular Phone Interception at its Best By Glen L. Roberts _________________________________________________________________ NATIA Conference The following pages highlight some companies and products that exhibited at the 1991 National Technical Investigators Conference (NATIA) show in Washington, DC. [only Harris Corporation Triggerfish is included here] NATIA is an organization of over 2300 law enforcement officers, communications and security managers assigned to support technical investigative activities in the major federal, state and local law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The NATIA membership is responsible for supplying all of the various audio, video, photographic, specialized electronic and investigative aids used in support of these sensitive bugging, wiretapping and intelligence activities. As with the 1990 show, there was a strong showing of covert video systems. Cellular phone interception systems are now becoming commonplace. The following information has been complied from product literature made available at the show. It should be remembered that NATIA has a law enforcement membership and some of the products are only available to such agencies. Additionally, some RF devices are not FCC approved and therefore, only available to Federal law enforcement agencies. Even though the sale of some devices may be limited to official law enforcement agencies, the technology is relatively simple. For example, the cellular phone monitoring equipment is sold only to the law enforcement market. However, anyone wishes to exert a little elbow grease can accomplish the same on their own. This should be taken as a stern warning to those who have an expectation of privacy when using their cellular phones. As the information shows, commercial units can record the calls, as well as tracking by mobile phone number, electronic serial number and also direction finding to physically locate an individual using a cellular phone. _________________________________________________________________ Harris Law Enforcement Products TRIGGERFISH has a number of cellular phone based applications: determining a suspects phone number, dialed number recorder, and wiretapping. According to Harris, ``for the first time, law enforcement is not at a disadvantage in tracking the high-tech criminal.'' Additionally, the unit ``collects and integrates all relevant data, including voice, directly from the ether.'' PO Box 91000, Melbourne, FL 32902. Phone: (800) 442-7747, Fax: (407) 768-4005 _________________________________________________________________ CENSORED! Harris Corporation Tries To Censor Full Disclosure Harris Corporation, ranked 156 in the Fortune 500 list attempted to censor Full Disclosure's reporting on its ``Triggerfish'' product. The report was part of Full Disclosure's coverage of the 1991 National Technical Investigators Association (NATIA) conference in Washington, DC. The ``Triggerfish'' is a cellular telephone ``wiretapping'' device manufactured and sold by Harris Corporation. The original Full Disclosure article on the NATIA conference and the ``Triggerfish'' is reprinted above. In 1986, Congress outlawed the interception of cellular phone calls, except in those circumstances in which a regular phone could be wiretapped. Only law enforcement agencies that can satisfy a court that a wiretap is necessary and allowable by law, can legally monitor cellular phone calls. It is common knowledge, however, that anyone with a police scanner or other receiver that covers the 800 Mhz band can intercept cellular phone calls. However, it can be tedious to target a specific cellular phone. There are nearly 1,000 channels that have to be scanned through until the desired conversation is heard, or one has to be physically close enough to the cellular phone to get a frequency readout and then monitor that frequency. This complication in intercepting cellular phone calls, often grants a false illusion of privacy. The belief that one's call might be lost in the jumble of hundreds of other calls only stands by a superficial understanding of the technology. Amongst the hundreds of telephone conversations taking place over the cellular phone network, there are data channels that inform the cellular phones what phones are conversing on what channels (frequencies). This information is necessary for the cellular phones to operate. Constantly flowing on these data channels (heard as a buzz if tuned into on a scanner) are cell phone electronic serial numbers, mobile telephone numbers and channel / frequency information. By decoding this information, one can instantly tune into a conversation taking place on a particular mobile telephone number. Technologically, this is obviously trivial, since the cellular phones are able to function (ie: following the programming of the cellular network and switch frequencies when the phone moves among cellular phone sites). The Harris ``Triggerfish'' product does exactly this too. It monitors the data channels and reports on what information (serial numbers, mobile phone numbers, etc) is being conveyed over the cellular phone network. Additionally, it allows the voice communication associated with particular mobile phone numbers be monitored (and recorded). Therefore, the ``Triggerfish'' product is of grave consequence to privacy issues. By simply, programming in a cellular phone number, the operator can then remotely ``wiretap'' any cellular phone within the geographic area, with absolutely no risk of discovery. Since the only link between the ``Triggerfish'' and the telephone call being wiretapped, is the ``ether,'' there is no possibly of a ``wiretapping'' device to be found attached to a phone line. It is very rare that a prosecution for illegal wiretapping of regular phones is seen. There are a number of problems, when a wiretap is found, there is usually no physical evidence linking the device and whomever planted it. The exception being when someone is caught red-handed installing, or removing, or repairing a device. With cellular phone ``wiretapping'' there is no device to be found, which reduces the risk of the prosecution to as close to zero as you can get. The fact that cellular phone interception, even though, illegal leaves the interceptor at no risk to prosecution, brings the issue of cellular phone privacy to the forefront of the public debate on privacy issues. Devices like ``Triggerfish'' are central to this debate, since they make what is often thought to be tedious, trivial. The risk of privacy invasion with technology like ``Triggerfish'' out there is much more insidious. Technology must be understood by all members of society to ensure that certain groups are unable to take undue advantage of others. This attempt at censorship by Harris Corporation only services to create a technological elite that is able to take advantage of those they can keep in the dark. _________________________________________________________________ Letter from Harris Corporation HARRIS May 26, 1993 Mr. Glen L. Roberts Editor/Publisher Full Disclosure [PO Box 1533, Oil City, PA 16301 -- new address] Dear Mr. Roberts: Your issue No. 24 of Full Disclosure has been brought to my attention because of an apparently unauthorized advertisement on page 8 for a Harris law enforcement product referred to as "Triggerfish." It is my understanding that the publication of this advertisement was not previously requested nor authorized by Harris. The unapproved use of this advertisement constitutes a deceptive trade practice, which would potentially subject you and your newspaper to civil liability. Further, you have used our trademarks -- Harris and Triggerfish -- without permission. Lastly, you may have committed a felony under 18 USC 2512(1)(c)(i). This criminal statute prohibits the placement in a newspaper or magazine of an advertisement for an electronic product that is primarily useful for the purpose of surreptitiously intercepting electronic communications. Further, these actions on your part may have also subjected Harris Corporation to such liability under this statute. You are hereby instructed to immediately desist from placing advertisements or promotional material related to Harris electronic law enforcement products in your newspaper. Any further actions of this nature will be dealt with by filing a suit against you and your newspaper. Sincerely, /s/ John L. DeAngelis, Intellectual Property and Licensing Counsel. JLD/bea Harris Corporation Electronic Systems Section P.O. Box 37, Melbourne, Florida 32902 Telephone 407-727-4000 Response to Harris Corporation Drath & Dwyer - Lawyers - 400 South Beverly Drive * Suite 214 Beverly Hills, California 90212-4402 Tuesday, June 1, 1993 John L. DeAngelis Jr., Esq. Harris Corp. P.O. Box 37 Melbourne, FL 32902 _________________________________________________________________ Dear Mr. DeAngelis: I write on behalf of Glen L. Roberts, the editor and publisher of the magazine, Full Disclosure, in reply to your May 26 letter addressed to him. In addition to advising Mr. Roberts, I serve as privacy law columnist for his publication and co-host with him of "Full Disclosure Live," a one-hour live radio program carried across the country on the Let's Talk Radio Network. It is shocking sophistry on your part to have characterized Full Disclosure's editorial expression about the product, "Triggerfish," as an "advertisement" Of course, I recognize your procrustean need to do that, because "advertisement," is the operative word of the criminal statute you cite. Had you taken time to research even a few of the many cases in which "advertisement" not only has been defined as the space one associated with a product purchases from a publisher, but as well distinguished from editorial expression or news reporting by such a publisher or his or her subaltern, for example, an editor, you might have saved your company the embarrassment that well may flow from your misguided missive. Cary Grant couldn't make an Esquire magazine news article, which used a photograph of his head, into an advertisement in the Southern District of New York 20 years ago; I doubt you'll have any greater success today, venue notwithstanding. Respecting your assertion of trademark use without permission, we are unable to locate any authority, statutory or decisional, that even suggests that editorial mention of a product or service, which enjoys registered or common law trade or service mark protection, obliges the publisher to include an indication of such status or forbids such publication "without permission." Perhaps, given your stated role as intellectual property counsel, you can afford us the benefit of your expertise in this realm. What I find most troubling about your letter is your apparent indifference to First Amendment law. A careful reading of the 1968 legislative history of 18 USC 2512 acquaints one with the fact that Congress did not seek to abridge free press rights in proscribing the advertising of "bugging" devices. Indeed, the intention was to "strik[e] at all aspects of the problem" of invasion of privacy, because "[a]ll too often ... [it] ... will go unknown." It continues to be Mr. Robert's persistent and pervasive theme that for our democratic society to defeat the depredations of privacy-invasive devices, it must know that they exist and how they work. Hence, attempts like yours to chill or impair free exercise of expression in the arena of such public affairs can only be viewed as inimical to the legislative underpinnings of the statute involved. You use of it is akin to the drunkard's fondness for the lamppost: more for support than illumination. Really, sir, for a lawyer to tell a reporter that there's potential criminality involved in writing about a product in the marketplace should make you tremble to know that God is just. The First Amendment, you seem to require reminding, is an absolute bar to the imposition of such government restraints of the press as you erroneously think your cited statute imports. The press must be free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship. Guarding little secrets, like the existence of your "Triggerfish," at the expense of an informed representative government is about as tawdry a legal proposition as I can imagine. Let me add that your menacing Full Disclosure's editor with the prospect of criminal charges, in our opinion, implicates issues of professional responsibility. When lawyers in jurisdictions with which I am familiar try that technique to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute, they are subject to discipline. Is there no such sanction for Pennsylvania practitioners? I invite your reply on the points raised, including your proposal as to how we might avoid formal proceedings to right the wrong you have done Full Disclosure. Failing your willingness to apologize or submit this matter to an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for a declaration of rights, I shall advise Full Disclosure to proceed with an action under 28 USC 2201 as a possible predicate to seeking further relief. As a matter of professional courtesy, I wish to inform you that the Harris Corp. officers and directors shown as recipients of copies of this letter and its enclosure are not being sent a copy of your letter to Mr. Roberts; it, I believe, more appropriately should reach them from you. For your further information, the two other copy recipients in addition to Mr. Roberts, namely, Messrs.. Ward and Rudnick, are, respectively, our intellectual property adviser and our litigation counsel. You doubtless know Mr. Ward from his prominence at the trademark bar. Mr. Rudnick, who would handle a Rule 57 matter, if such proves necessary, is a former federal prosecutor with the Los Angeles Strike Force. Sincerely, /s/ Will Dwyer II Enclosure Copies: Richard L. Ballantyne, Esq., Mr. John T. Hartley, Mr. Joseph Boyd, Mr. Lester Coleman, Mr. Ralph D. Denunzio, Mr. C. Jackson Grayson, Jr., Mr. George I. Meisel, Mr. Walter Raab, Mr. Robert Cizik. Mr. Joseph Dionne, Mr. Alexander Trowbrige, Mr. Allan J. Huber, Mr. Glen L. Roberts, Marvin L. Rudnick, Esq., Thomas J. Ward, Esq. _________________________________________________________________ [No reply has ever been received] _________________________________________________________________ Are You Confused? Federal law says you can't listen to cellular phone calls. Federal law says you can listen to cordless phone calls. Georgia Court says you can listen to cellular phone calls. Connecticut Court says that you can't listen to cordless phone calls. Harris Corporation says that Full Disclosure's article on their Triggerfish product is an advertisement and may be a felony under the wiretapping statute. Harris Corporation produces and distributes in interstate commerce a slick ten page glossy brochure on the Triggerfish. Technology and Power What is clear is that technology is not well understood, legislation and the courts can't change how it works. As I've often said, those who understand the technology have great power over those who don't. The confusion above clearly demonstrates that. Regardless of the law, those who know how to tap into the wireless communication will do so in order to covertly, effectively, and risklessly collect information. Those who know how the wireless wiretapping works will know how to protect themselves. An interesting court case in Georgia on monitoring cellular phone calls is quite significant. The case involved a suspected criminal monitoring and recording the cellular phone calls of police officers. Far too often, law enforcement officials are seen using their cellular phones as a way of protecting information that criminals (and others) might monitor on conventional frequencies with a police scanner. This ``protection'' is only an illusion based on a false understanding of the technology. The Georgia case clearly shows this. The wiretapping statute was enacted to protect the privacy of citizens. It did so, by strictly regulating the business of privacy invasion (audio, and through the 1986 amendments, computer data). It regulated not only the invasion, but the manufacture, sale, and advertisement of invasion devices. Like all laws, it did not intent to, or have any ability to regulate one's exercise of First Amendment rights. The wiretapping statute didn't seek by its wording or intent to prevent publications, citizens, broadcasters, or anyone, from discussing every aspect of the business of privacy invasion. My original, one-paragraph approach to the Triggerfish product was obviously ineffective. The technology of cellular phone interception is not well understood. The Georgia case shows that. The police should never have had that conversation recorded. It should not have taken place on an open communication medium. Triggerfish is just a product of Harris Corporation. How it works, is not a secret and can be done by anyone technically competent in the field. I believe that people are involved in this type of interception by modifying $100 cellular phones. An understanding of this technology is essential to protecting our privacy. Even, if the Harris Corporation Triggerfish is only being sold to law enforcement agencies that can get authorization to use it, and those agencies have effective oversight and only use it with court authorization. In other words, if Triggerfishes are only used in the handful of situations authorized by law, the technology is certainly used in hundreds, if not thousands of situations in blatant violation of the law. The risk to businessmen, lawyers, government officials, and law enforcement is great. The Georgia law enforcement breach occurred with the much simpler and less effective scanner approach to cellular phone interception. The Triggerfish style interception reduces the security of cellular communications to absolutely none. No law enforcement agency should use a cellular phone to convey any information that they would not be willing to state directly to their criminal targets. I make that statement from a technical standpoint, without regard to how beneficial, or how much we would like the situation to be different. It is the harsh reality. Reality, especially, harsh reality is resisted by many. They want to believe in the convenience of the cellular phone, and it is convenient. But at what price? This is what the technology is about. This is how it works. This is the harsh reality of life in a world of technology. You don't like it? Well, don't blame me, I am as hapless at changing technology as the courts and legislatures. Look inward and use your mind to understand the technology and use it for what it is good for, and nothing more. Remember, all the attempts to regulate the distribution of information on technology will serve only to increase your risk of harm resulting from a failure to fully understand the technology.