Juries 'should hear phone taps' to nail crime gangs

[Owen Lewis]

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Sommer <hcorn@cix.co.uk>
To: <ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Sent: 09 September 2002 17:00
Subject: Re: Juries 'should hear phone taps' to nail crime gangs


>
> >Owen Lewis says:
> >
> >I get involved in matters of this type from time to time. To try and
> >summarise the position as I believe it to be and offer a short view
thereon:
>
>
> Am I right to assume you talking here about the harvest from bugs,
wireless
> and wired,  and not telephone taps, which is what that part of IoCA / RIPA
> is about?

I was responding to your quotation from Chap 8 of the consultation paper and
the limitations (IOCA) of the use of intercepts obtained under warrant. In
my mind at time of writing were hardwire taps, reprogramming of PBXs,
interception of wireless telecommunications (and else besides).

Not too sure what you may mean by a wired bug. Though jargon is usually
sloppy in use, 'bugs' are generally considered to be wireless and 'taps' to
be hardwired or capacitative/inductive coupling. However, where a 'tap'
feeds a wireless transmitter rather than a recorder (remotely or locally
sited) it would normally be referred to as a bug. Also, a standalone
hardwired system (e.g. as might used for through-the-wall eavesdropping)
would be generally termed a bug - as would a wireless system used for the
same task.

One might think that a 'tap' is therefore the means of intercepting
communications in a PSTN. Truth is though that, in today's world, these
become rarer and the re-programming of switches more common. And the latter
is not, to my knowledge, referred to as a 'tap'.

In general, my comment reflected on the reluctance of the agencies who bug,
tap or tap/bug/otherwise intercept communications to have revealed publicly
the techniques used and, even more,  the technical parameters of equipment
used.  Bugs, taps, intercepts... tous sont la meme chose.

Owen