Sloppy's Journal: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

The courts long ago ruled that phone users have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus a warrant is needed for Law Enforcement to intercept.

I wonder if this "reasonable expectation" is delusional and technologically out-of-date. I see a lot of people talking on wireless phones these days. Heck, I have one myself. Do most people know how they work? Does a user have the slightest clue as to every sort of network hop that might occur in your connection?

We actually have laws against building certain types of radio receivers. But let's get serious: if you build one, will anyone know? Of course not. And thus: it is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone out there, has done it. So it's against the law: BFD. People break the law all the time. (Except me, of course. I'm a model citizen. :-)

"Reasonable expection" is vague enough that it deserves to be reexamined and challenged every now and then. I think this expection is more of a wish, combined with a little bit of faith that, "Oh, nobody is interested in spying on little ol' me."

I look forward to the day when my cellphone can look up people's PGP keys (and give me some sort of trust indicator that shows how well that key has been authenticated (e.g. signed by me is 100%, total stranger with no pathway of sigs to him, is 0%)) and use them.

Better yet, if I'm in the same room as someone, my phone and his should be able to use some low-powered IR link and exchange a few megabytes of One Time Pad right there on the spot; there will be plenty of room to store it for future reference, on the phone's built-in 100 Gig hard disk. (And it's not like phones will have a hard time gathering entropy; they have a radio receiver and a microphone. And if you spend all your time in a quiet, radio-shielded room, just point the CCD at yourself and make funny faces.)

When we have endpoint-to-endpoint encryption, then I'll believe that we really do have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Of course, that'll keep the Good Guys out, even if they do get a warrant. But it'll keep Bad Guys out too, and they never bother with warrants anyway.

What's new?

[turg]

It is easier to tap into your phone wire than to eavesdrop on the radio signal of your cordless phone. The difference is not in how easy it is to break into the technology, but that with wireless eavesdropping you're less likely to be caught because you don't have to show up in person on the premises in order to do the tapping.

I don't think the technology reduces the reasonableness of expecting privacy. It was already ridiculously easy to eavesdrop -- that's why it became an issue for the law to deal with

"Wiretapping" mobile phones

[Tet]

Actually, most mobile phones already do feature quite sophisticated encryption, changing keys several times per second and switching frequencies regularly, too. For the average man on the street, they're very difficult to snoop.

However, IIRC it's not end to end encryption. The connection between your phone and the network provider is encrypted, and between the network provider and the recipient. But that means any insider at your network provider should be able to snoop quite easily. And I have no doubt t

Other options.

[TechnoLust]

That's exactly why I use the Boy Who Cried Wolf defense. Whenever any of my friends call and ask what I'm doing, I say something like, "I'm going over to Paul Smith's house on Main Street to pick up some heroine, then over to Bob Johnson's to grab a few underage prostitutes. Then I'm going to Tim Black's house on 15th to watch pirated movies while the illegal MP3s and warez are downloaded." That way, if I ever DO commit an illegal act and mention it on the cell phone, they will have investigated so many

Re:"Wiretapping" mobile phones

[elmegil]

And I have no doubt that they'll cave in to governmental requests to listen in.

Since they're legally required to provide a snoop loop for the use of law enforcement, it's not even a matter of "caving".

Re:"Wiretapping" mobile phones

[Tet]

Since they're legally required

The world != The USA.

Re:"Wiretapping" mobile phones

[elmegil]

Have you noticed lately though, that the USA has a LOT of influence over legislation in other places? cf Copyright in Europe, etc.? Sorry, I did assume the USA, but honestly, I'd be shocked if, like much of our other "anti terrorist" legislation it at least makes the attempt to move around.

And since a lot of that telecomm equipment is manufactured by US companies, you don' think the loops are just there, regardless?