_________________________________________________________________
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.