kondrak writes:
>Bruce is right on on this one:
>
>http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70591-0.html
>
>By Bruce Schneier
>Apr, 06, 2006
>
>There are basically four ways to eavesdrop on a telephone call.
>...
My grandmother was a switchboard operator
in a small town. Back then, Bell Telephone
selected operators based on character of the
person -- literally questioning their virtue
and doing what today would be called a reference
check. Why? Operators were totally enabled
to eavesdrop. As I grew up on a party line
with live operators, meaning not only the
operator but also all the neighbors could
eavesdrop, I/we never trusted the phone at
all. This and the cost meant the phone was
used for important things, never for mere
conversation. I suspect that the 1928
Supreme Court decision that a wiretap was
not a violation of anything stemmed from the
fact that eavesdropping was inherent to the
phone system itself and thus the requirement
for a warrant would effectively have criminalized
my grandmother and everyone on my street.
--dan
[ our number was 1417, the underwear factory
where my dad worked was 628 ]
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:19 CST