Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site security.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!genrad!security!wdr
From: wdr@security.UUCP (William D. Ricker)
Newsgroups: net.tv,net.legal
Subject: Re: Satellite dish cleanup : Technical Practicalities
Message-ID: <705@security.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Aug-84 14:27:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: security.705
Posted: Tue Aug  7 14:27:33 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Aug-84 03:26:01 EDT
References: <645@ucla-cs.ARPA> <1298@wateng.UUCP> <1279@sdccs7.UUCP> <2223@tekig.UUCP>
Organization: MITRE Corp., Bedford MA
Lines: 66

This note is not debating the SanFran clean-up, which was apparently
actually a Microwave Distribution System being tapped.  This
discusses collection of evidence, beyond the "His antenna points
at the satellite I share".  It is also applicable to Cable's with
scrambled channels.

notes one previous article:

>	Any laws that regulate receivers *unavoidably* require the
>violation of privacy and protections against search and seizure.
>This is because receivers are *quiet*.  They emit nothing, so to
>find them, you have to go looking, and tear apart peoples' houses to
>find their illicit circuitry.  Or else, maybe, you have to use
>informers.  This stinks.  Better to leave recievers unregulated.

and another:

>Photographic and electronic evidence would seem not to
>hold up in court.  To pick up your local oscillator, and have
>a verifiable method of determining it was your antenna, and
>you happened to be watching at that time, on that date, etc.,
>doesn't sound to good to me.

I have been informed by a usually reliable source that some 'TV Rating'
services use an electronics van driving through a neighborhood to
determine who is watching what on TV.  I am not sure whether this is to
callibrate the reliability of diary keeppers, supplement diary usage,
for over-night samplings, or a separage service.  This eaves-dropping
is quite possible, since TV receivers are *not* all that quiet.  The
heterodyne tuning and amplification circuits all use oscilators, etc.,
and there is much energy released in directing the beam.  When you turn
on the TV, *you* are broadcasting, too (with rather low power & S/N,
admittedly).  The only question of practicallity is the cost of equipment
to do it sized for mobility.

Whether such data would be admissable as evidence of theft of service
is quite another matter.  If unauthorized reception of broadcast
material is no crime, then the "evidence" is legally collected but
useless.  On the other hand, if unauthorized reception of broadcast
material is illegal, then non-statistical use of the Van collected
data should be illegal search.  the ol' Chicken and the egg.
But a suitably devious legislative lobbyist should be able to
draft legislation to permit the search while punishing the space
pirate ;-).

As has been pointed out, crypto is the solution -- those who want to 
broadcast proprietary material had better protect it.  In general
commerce it is hard to claim proprietary infringement without attempting
to protect the information.  Harassment shouldn't count!  If they want
to claim they have fulfilled their duty of protecting their claimed
proprietary rights, they should show use of appropriate technology.
If Tug-boat owners have a duty to install up to date radios (the case
law; citation fails me), then shouldn't broadcasters et all have
to do likewise?



-- 

  William Ricker
  wdr@mitre-bedford.ARPA					(MIL)
  wdr@security.UUCP						(UUCP)
  decvax!genrad!security!wdr					(UUCP)
 {allegra,ihnp4,utzoo,philabs,uw-beaver}!linus!security!wdr	(UUCP)

Opinions are my own and not necessarily anyone elses.  Likewise the "facts".