[2421] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
RE: Rivest's Wheat & Chaff - A crypto alternative
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brown, R Ken)
Tue Mar 31 11:04:58 1998
From: "Brown, R Ken" <brownrk1@texaco.com>
To: David Wagner <daw@cs.berkeley.edu>, cryptography@c2.net,
"'Rick Smith'"
<rsmith@securecomputing.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 03:30:02 -0600
Rick Smith wrote (along with lots of other stuff)
[...]
> > There is exactly *one* celebrated case in which a breach of cell phone
> privacy caused something akin to "damage," and that was the Newt Gingrich
> case. Do we know of any others? If cell phone snooping is so common, why
> haven't there been more reported cases of Bad Things happening?
There have been loads of cases in UK. Both the Charles & Diana got snooped
on heavily and tapes were released of both of them talking to various
friends of the opposite sex in apparently compromosing ways. I guess you
caould count that as "damage" - their children at any rate - not the best
environment ot keep a marriage going or raise children I'd think - how many
teeneagers people would enjoy having their paren'ts private phone calls
available from 0800 numbers? I'd rather my family had access to strong
cryptography.
> My wife is an MD and she's *constantly* discussing patients' private
> affairs over her cell phone. The nice thing about the way the law is
> written is that it doesn't penalize speaker for disclosing the intercepted
> information, it makes the listener liable for prosecution instead. The
> structure of the law doesn't encourage strong privacy. Instead, it
promotes
> vulnerable use of cell phones by shifting the blame if information is
> disclosed.
But if the eavesdropper can get paid well for the information? Or if the
disclosure is anonymous? There are cases where a tabloid newspaper has paid
anonymous (allegedly) eavesdroppers for tape recordings (& IIRC at least
one case where the anonymous person then came out & sold their story to
another paper)
