
 Acknowledgements.

  I would like to thank David Wagner, John Kelsey, and Bruce Schneier
 of the Counterpane Internet Security, Inc. for their much-seeing
 eye on encryption algorithms; TheHex for replying in such a positive
 way, that I got this finished in the matter of two days; everyone at
 #Cracking4Newbies and #evidence, especially Crkill98, for their
 corporation and friendship during the harder times.

 A Look Into Wiretapping.

  Wiretapping is the traditional term for interception of telephone conver-
sations. This should not be taken too literally. The word is no longer
restricted to communications traveling by wire, and contemporary wire-
taps are more commonly placed on radio links or inside telephone offices.
The meaning has also broadened in that the thing being tapped need no
longer be a telephone call in the classic sense; it may be some oher
form of electronic communication, such as fax or data.

  Compared with the more precise but more general phrase "commu-
nications interception," the word "wiretapping" has two connotations.
Much the stronger of these is that a wiretap is aimed at a particular target,
in sharp contrast to the "vacuum cleaner" interception widely practiced
by national intelligence agencies. The weaker connotation is that it is
being done by the police.

  The history of wiretapping in the United States is in fact two histories
intertwined. It is a history of wiretapping per se--that is, a history of the
installation and use of wiretaps by police, intelligence agencies, hones
citizens, businesses, and criminals. It is also a history of society's legal
response to wiretapping by these various groups.

  The origins of wiretapping lie in two quiet different practices: eaves-
dropping and letter opening. "Eavesdropping," although once more re-
stricted in meaning, has come to describe any attempt to overhear con-
versations without the knowledge of the participants. "Letter opening"
takes in all acquisition, opening reading, and copying of written mes-
sages, also without knowledge of the sending and receiving parties.
Telecommunication has unified and systematized these practices.

  Before the electronic era, a conversation could only be carried on by
people located within earshot of each other, typically a few feet apart.
Neither advanced planning nor great effort on the part of the participans
was required to ensure a high degree of security. Written communica-
tions were more vulnerable, but intercepting one was still a hit-or-miss
affair. Messages traveled by a variety of postal services, couriers, travel-
ers, and merchants. Politically sensitive messages, in particular, could not
be counted on to go by predictable channels, so special couriers were
sometimes employed.

  And written messages enjoyed another sort of protection. Regardless of
a spy's skill with flaps and seals, there was no guarantee that, if a letter was
intercepted, opened, and read, the victim would not notice the intrusion.
Since spying typically has to be done covertly in order to succeed, the
chance of detection is a substantial deterrent.

  Electronic communication has changed all this in three fundamental
ways: it has made telecommunication too convenient to avoid; it has,
despite appearances, reduced the diversity of channels by which written
messages once traveled; and it has made the act of interception invisible
to the target.

  Conversation by telephone has achieved an almost equal footing with
face-to-face conversation. It is impossible today to run a successful busi-
ness without the telephone, and eccentric even to attempt to do without
the telephone in private life. The telephone provides a means of commu-
nication so effective and convenient that even people who are aware of
the danger of being overheard routinely put aside their caution and use it
to convey sensitive information.

  As the number of channels of communication has increased (there are
now hundres of communication companies, with myriad fibers, satel-
lites, and microwave links), the diversity of communication paths has
diminished. In the days of oxcart and sail, there was no registry of the
thousands of people willing to carry a message in return for a tip from
the recipient. Today, telecommunications carriers must be registered with
national and local regulatory bodies and are well known to trace associ-
ations and industry watch groups. Thus, interception has become more
systematic. Spies, no longer faced with a patchwork of ad hoc couriers,
know better where to look for what thet seek.

  Perhaps more important, interception of telecommunications leaves no
telltale "marks on the envelop." It is inherent in telecommunication--
and inseparable from its virtues--that the sender and the receiver of a
message have no way of telling who else may have recorded a copy.

  Any discussion of wiretapping, particularly a legal discussion, is com-
plicated by the fact that electronics has not only made interception of
telecommunications possible; it has also made it easier to "bug" face-to-
face conversations. Bugging would be nearly irrelevant to the central sub-
ject of this document--Taking A Deeper Trip Into Wiretapping--were it not
for the fact that bugs and wiretaps are inseparably intertwined in law and
jurisprudence and named by one collective term: electronic surveillance.

  Wiretaps and bugs are powerful investigative tools. They allow the
eavesdropper to overhear conversations between politicians, criminals,
lawyers, or lovers without the targets' knowing that their words are
being share with unwanted listeners. Electronic surveillance is a tool
that can detect criminal conspiracies and provide prosecutors with strong
evidence--the conspirators' incriminating statements in their own voices
--all without danger to law-enforcement officers. On the other hand, the
very invisibility on which electronic surveillance depends for its effective-
ness makes it evasive of oversight and readily adaptable to malign uses.
Electronic surveillance can be and has been used by those in power to
undermine the democratic process by spying on their political opponents.
In light of this, it is not surprising that Congress and the courts have
approached wiretapping and bugging with suspicion.

  Today, communication enjoys a measure of protection under US law,
and neither government agents nor private citizens are permitted to wire-
tap at will. This has not always been the case. The current view--that
wiretaps are a kind of search--has evolved by fits and starts over a cen-
tury and a half. The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that the police
may not employ wiretaps without court authorization. Congress has embraced
this principle, limiting police use of wiretaps and setting standards for the
granting of warrants. The same laws prohibit most wiretapping by private
citizens.

  The rules against unwarranted wiretapping are not absolute, however.
For example, the courts ruled in 1992 (United States vs. David Lee Smith,
978 F. 2nd 171, US App) that conversations over cordless phones were
not protected and that police tapping of cordless phones did not require a
search warrant. A 1994 statute (Communications Assistance for Law En-
forcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-414, 202) extended the warrant
requirements of the earlier law to cover cordless phones. The law also
makes some exceptions for businesses intercepting the communications
of their own employees on company property.

 Contact.

  I don't like to be contacted with subjects like "I think your article
 sucks," but since you can't make everyone happy, I must learn to live
 with it. For the ones with a positive attitude, you can e-mail me at
 psyops@evidence2k.de with all questions security-related.