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".