December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

CDA II and Tax Issues
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Sender: johnmuller(a)mail.earthlink.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 18:39:13 -0700 Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> From: John Muller <johnmuller(a)EARTHLINK.NET> Subject: CDA II and Tax Issues To: CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM Some questions for the eminent Constitutional litigators on this list: As noted in the Freedom Forum article posted by David Burt, the newly-adopted Internet Tax Freedom Act contains a provision which makes harmful-to-minor-ographers ineligible for the moratorium on Internet taxes. Specifically, any person or entity that knowingly makes a communication for commercial purposes by means of the Web which includes material harmful to minors does not get the benefits of the moratorium, unless the person or entity has restricted access to the material in specified ways. (BTW, the Web is defined to include FTP and "other similar protocols"). See http://cox.house.gov/nettax/itfafinal.pdf (1 MB+ download). Is it possible to challenge the Constitutionality of this provision even before any state has rushed to tax on-line peddlers of harmful-to-minor materials? If so, why aren't the ACLU/EFF/EPIC challenging this bill? Is the Constitutional challenge significantly harder to maintain than CDA II? After all, it's singling out a particular type of speech, and as they say the power to tax is the power to destroy, even if uncertainty about being taxed is not likely to chill speech as much as uncertainty about going to jail. John Muller johnmuller(a)earthlink.net "Things are not as they seem, neither are they otherwise" --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Re: Censored news topic censored ...
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ray & Mark, Well, I found the show, so Mr. Suarez get the bonus credit for having actually talked about this topic on air. Ray did talk about the item because a caller brought it up. He did allude to the fact that these items might not be given much attention. However, my point was that this was passed deliberately passed at a point when the FBI knew too much other noise would drown this item out of most mainstream media outlets. This subtle calculation of the media response is the topic I am concerned about. Any PARTICULAR media outlet, such as TOTN, may not necessarily be guilty of censorship in the deliberate sense, but lots of stories drop on the proverbial cutting room floor, and the Wag The Dog effect where the embarassing stuff was manipulated into page 23 of NY Times while bogus news items were fed for front page is the effect I wanted to discuss with Ray. Again, Ray, I am not saying YOU deliberately censored anything, nor am I saying ANY news outlet deliberately censored this story. I am accusing the FBI of counting on a particular behavior on the part of Congress, news outlets, and the American people at a time when lots of budget items are flying by to slip their agenda in, and this is particularly bad behavior for a agency charged with protecting the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. Ern -----Original Message----- From: Ernest Hua <hua(a)teralogic-inc.com> To: TOTNMAIL(a)npr.org <TOTNMAIL(a)npr.org> Cc: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net <cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net>; letters(a)nytimes.com <letters(a)nytimes.com>; HEDGES(a)infopeace.com <HEDGES(a)infopeace.com> Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 4:51 PM Subject: Re: Censored news topic censored ... >Mr. Suarez, > >Ah ... I see where the misunderstandings are ... > >I am listening to the program on "The Budget Deal", >which is the hour most likely to have any mention >of the roving wiretap provision. > >On-the-air transcripts or not, however, I think you >still miss the central point. The issue is that >most major news outlets did NOT report on HOW this >provision was rammed through Congress. I did not >specifically accuse YOU of not reporting, which is >probably why you are so defensive. Certainly, the >Market Place show reported this, and so did the San >Jose Mercury, but not New York Times. ABCNEWS only >said that something was passed to help law >enforcement, as if anything passed to help law >enforcement is necessarily a good thing. > >The issue is not whether the issue of roving wire >taps got any light of day. The issue is that the >process of the roving wire taps being rammed >through Congress did NOT get the light of day, >specifically because the FBI lobbyists did this at >the last minute to get it hidden in all the noise >of the frantic 11th hour budget deals ... which is >why I thought the topic was most appropriate to the >discussion of relevant news today. > >I did not claim to have a solution to the problem >of too much noise to valuable news ratio. However, >some insight from someone like you, Ray, could have >been a good discussion and education for all of us >concerned with the FBI's legislative tricks. > >I would have also brought up the lack of reporting >on the EU's concerns about US/UK mass wire tapping. >It's clear that the NSA does not want this topic >discussed, and in fact, had pressured the EU to not >bring up the topic. Wired magazine reported this >within the last week, but S J Mercury had nothing >on it, nor the N Y Times, etc ... > >Ray, please do not think I am accusing YOU of >censoring the wire tap topic. What I am concerned >about is the news media's role in not shining a >bright lights on these topics, and that is a very >serious issue. > >Ern > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Hedges <hedges(a)infonex.com> >Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 3:29 PM >Subject: Re: Censored news topic censored ... > > >>Interesting. Back to you, Ernest. >>>From: TOTNMAIL(a)npr.org >>>Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 18:24:54 -0400 >>>To: HEDGES(a)INFOPEACE.COM >>>Your "evidence" of NPR collusion and stifling of the news would be most >>>disturbing, except for the fact that I have discussed roving wiretaps on >the >>>air, explained the manner in which they were being rammed through with >little >>>debate, and talked about how it was a departure from years of precedence >>>regarding warrants and court permission. I have the on-air transcript, you >>>have >>>the hearsay of a caller who is disappointed because he didn't get on the >air. >>> >>>Ray Suarez >> >>>This is most distressing. I was one of the very first >>>callers to your Talk of the Nation show today whose >>>topic was relevant news reporting in the US. My topic >>>was the lack of reporting on the FBI's last minute >>>sneak of the roving wire tap proposal into the >>>intelligence budget bill. I wanted Ray to talk about >>>the editorial process and how these things get dropped >>>on the floor as this item is extremely important to >>>our democracy because it is an agency charged with >>>protecting our Constitutional rights (the FBI) who is >>>deliberately circumventing the democratic legislative >>>process to pass a law which was sounded defeated two >>>years ago in open debate. >>> >>>Ironically, my topic was censored, and I waited an >>>hour, while other people wanted to discuss things >>>like how they can vent about their divorce >>>difficulties through the Monica Lewinsky scandal, only >>>to be dropped in the end. >>> >>>Would any of the NPR staff or Mr. Suarez would like >>>to explain just what happened here?

1 0

CDA II and Tax Issues (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:46:08 -0400 > From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> > Subject: CDA II and Tax Issues > Some questions for the eminent Constitutional litigators on this list: As > noted in the Freedom Forum article posted by David Burt, the newly-adopted > Internet Tax Freedom Act contains a provision which makes > harmful-to-minor-ographers ineligible for the moratorium on Internet taxes. > Is it possible to challenge the Constitutionality of this provision even > before any state has rushed to tax on-line peddlers of harmful-to-minor > materials? If so, why aren't the ACLU/EFF/EPIC challenging this bill? Is Hm, wasn't there a ruling in a similar vein respecting tax on illegal drugs just recently? It was my understanding it was found to be unconstitutional. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Is Your Web Site A Secret?
by launch＠launchmaster.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is your web site the best kept secret on the Internet? We'll promote it to 50 search engines and indexes for $85 and complete the job in 2 business days. Satisfaction is guaranteed! If you have a great product, but are not getting many inquiries from your Web site, you may not be adequately listed on the Web's search engines and indexes. Millions of viewers daily use these facilities to find the products and services they are looking for. But if your site is not listed, no one will see it. Listings on most of these services are free. However, locating and filling out the forms required to get a listing can take several days, and most people just don't have the time to do it. That is why we offer a web site promotion service. WHAT'S THE DEAL? We will submit your site to 50 indexes and search engines for $85. We will accept the return of this E-mail, with the form below filled out, as an order. We will bill you upon completion of the promotion. Our terms are net 15 days from date of invoice. Satisfaction guaranteed! HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE? Generally, we complete the submissions within 48 hours of receiving your order. It can take any individual search engine or index up to three weeks to process your submission, although most are much faster. WHAT SEARCH ENGINES AND INDEXES ARE INCLUDED IN THE PROMOTION? The list changes from time to time. This is our current list: Alta Vista, Anzwers, AOL Netfind, BizCardz Business Directory, Bizlink, BizWeb, Black Widow Search, Excite, Galaxy, HotBot, Infomak, Infoseek, InfoSpace, InterBis, Jayde Online Directory, Jumpcity, Jumper Hot Links, JumpLink, LinkMonster, Lycos, MangaSeeker, Manufacturers Information Network, Net Happenings, Net Announce, New Page List, New Riders WWW Yellow Pages, Northern Light, One World Plaza, PeekABoo, Planet Search, Power Crawler, QuestFinder, Scrub The Web, Seven Wonders, SiteFinder, SiteShack, Super Snooper, The YellowPages.com, TurnPike, Unlock: The Information Exchange, WebCrawler, WebVenture Hotlist, WhatUSeek, Where2Go, WhoWhere, World Announce Archive, Wow! Web Wonders!, YeeHaa!, Yellow Pages Superhighway, YelloWWWeb, Your Webscout, ZenFinder. HOW WILL I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE PROMOTED MY SITE? When we have completed the promotion, we will send you an HTML file as an attachment to your E-mail bill. Save this file to your disk, and view it through your Web browser. It provides links to the search engine we submitted your site to, plus any comments we received from them when we did it. ARE THERE ANY GUARANTEES? We do not require prepayment. Your satisfaction is guaranteed or you don't pay the bill. WHO IS LAUNCHMASTER? We are a web site promotion company located at: LaunchMaster, Inc. 12 Godfrey Place Wilton CT 06897 Phone: (877) 278-0875 Fax: (800) 321-6966 Email: launch(a)launchmaster.com HOW DO I ORDER? The easiest way to order is by e-mail. Just hit the REPLY button on your e-mail program and fill out the following information. (This information will be posted to the search engines/indexes): Your name: Company Name: Address: City: State/Prov: Zip/Postal Code: Telephone: Fax: Email address: URL: http:// Site Title: Description (about 25 words): Key words (maximum of 25, in descending order of importance): Contact (in case we have questions): If billing a different address, please complete the following: Addressee: Company Name: Address: City: State/Prov: Zip/Postal Code: Telephone: Fax: Email address: We will bill via Email. (A9 10/22/98) Terms: By returning this document via Email, you agree as follows: You have the authority to purchase this service on behalf of your company. Terms are net 15 days. Accounts sent to collections will be liable for collection costs. You agree to protect and indemnify LaunchMaster, Inc. in any claim for libel, copyright violations, plagiarism, or privacy and other suits or claims based on the content or subject matter of your site. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? When we receive your order, we will acknowledge it via return email. We will then input your information into our system. When completed, we will run your promotion, capturing any comments from search engines as we go. We will incorporate these into an HTML-formatted report to you, which we will attach to your bill. ======================Web Site Promotions====================== Launchmaster, Inc. 12 Godfrey Place Wilton CT 06897 Ph: (877) 278-0875 Fx: (800) 321-6966 E-mail: launch(a)launchmaster.com

1 0

Gilmore Subpoena (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:52:20 -0400 > From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> > Subject: Gilmore Subpoena > [Form] > > AO 110 (Rev. 12/89) Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury > _______________________________________________________________________ > > UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT > WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON > _______________________________________________________________________ > > To: > John Gilmore SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY > 210 Clayton Street BEFORE GRAND JURY > San Francisco, CA 94117 > Mine looks pretty much identical. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Censored news topic censored ...
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Would any of the NPR staff or Mr. Suarez would like > > to explain just what happened here? > > I'll take a stab: milk spills, people trip, shit happens. > > They probably didn't mean it. > > But who knows. My best guess is shit happens, but my criticism was aimed at the rather ironic situation where a topic about a topic being censored was, itself, censored. Now, I wouldn't necessarily have taken that second "censored" quite as seriously as Mr Suarez has in his E-Mails, but I suppose "censor" might have a very serious connotation in the news business (deliberateness, conspiracy, etc.). It is clear that he is, at least, aware of the fact that the bill passed under questionable circumstances. He probably took my pre-screen literally as "he wants to talk about this wire tap thing again, but I've already covered it in a previous show". In any case, the point is precisely what Dan Gillmor in San Jose Mercury (and also in the interview with Market Place) said: It's not what was passed; it's how it was passed and when it was passed, and the deliberate attempt to keep the public from knowing much about it. Notice that all the news talk today about the FCC discussing the new mobile wire tap provision has pretty much assumed that the 1994 $500M Digital Telephony (a.k.a. CALEA) bill was passed matter of fact. No one mentioned that it was passed also at the last minute under questionable circumstances during 11th hour budget deals. No one even questions the fact that Louis Freeh and Janet Reno claimed that civil libertarians and phone companies were exaggerating the >$2B price and were absolutely sure the $500M was more than adequate. Does anyone believe that a >$2B CALEA would have passed? Even in the dark of night? The lesson here to the FBI is, go ahead ... exaggerate ... lie if you have to ... no one is going to call you on it. Ern

1 0

Re: dbts: Cryptographic Dog Stocks, The Dirigible Biplane, andSending the Wizards Back to Menlo Park
by Vin McLellan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jeeez, I hope no one else sprained a finger getting the current stock price for Security Dynamics (SDTI). Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> took certain, ummm, dramatic liberties as he paraphrased a Boston Globe column yesterday on Bay State stocks that had "been discounted so deeply they raise eyebrows." Said Mr. Hettinga: >It seems that Security Dynamics, trading at about 6, about >10% or so of >its high, is now considered an official dog >stock as defined by today's >Boston Globe. What the Globe actually said was: "Security Dynamics Technologies Inc. of Bedford, a leader in computer security and encryption, has fallen from an April high of 42 1/2 to 12 yesterday. It traded as low as 6 two weeks ago." Said Mr. Hettinga: >Anyway, most of the comments in the article were about SD's >hardware >token technology being made obsolete by digital >"certificates". (The >Globe's quotes, but I agree with them. >Just like I put quotes around >digital "signatures", which >are nothing of the kind, though I haven't >heard of >something better call *them* yet, either.) The Globe did >>mention SD buying RSA, but they forgot to mention anything >about the RSA >patent expiring soon. About the only thing >they said was valuable about >SD was their share in that >roaring success, Verisign, Inc., who, the >Globe seems to >imply, is evidently the sole marketer of those self-same >>digital "certificates". I wonder what Thawte, CertCo, >Entrust, etc.made >of *that* comment... Hmmmm. What the Globe actually said was: "Security Dynamics made money for years selling authentication systems for corporate computer users and later acquired RSA Data Security, an Internet encryption leader. Now its original authentication products are being challenged by new technology using so-called ``digital certificates'' to make computer communication and commerce secure - a serious problem that has hurt the stock. "But Security Dynamics, with a current market value of about $490 million, could still offer a bigger company a leading position in the important computer security field and a huge embedded customer base. "Security Dynamics also owns a stake in Verisign Inc., a competitor in the digital certificate field. The company's cash and its investment in Verisign amount to about $6.50 per share, slightly more than half the stock's current price." Hettinga essays are like handball games: the damn ball is ricocheting off the side walls, both ends, the floor and the ceiling. Linear coherence and internal consistency are less important than the electrostatic energy and the rolling rhetorical thunder -- so hey, no big deal if he's a little frisky and expansive with the facts, right? For the full Globe article, cut & paste this URL: <http://www.boston.com/cgi-bin/passiton.cgi?globehtml/294/Among_Bay_State_s_… ered_tech_fir.shtml> Wall Street has not been kind to SDTI, from whom I have collected many checks for contract assignments over the years. Mr. Hettinga's explanation of the market's dynamics is, at the very least, guaranteed to stimulate. Hettinga's apparent scorn for modern cryptography's obsession with strong authentication -- now manifest in the intensity with which professionals worry the issues around PKC binding, key certification, digital signatures, CA procedures (and in the demand for smartcards to secure X509 certs apart from the networked CPU) -- bespeaks a truly iconoclastic mind. What tucked me in for the night was the declaration -- from R.H., the avatar of DBTS, e-cash, and geodesic recursive auctions -- that (venture) capital is or will be counterproductive to entreprenurial enterprise in the New Age. Un huh. Doomed, as well, by the hesitation inherent in the merely human minds that control its flow (at least in Rob's universe of cybernetic fiscal structures.) Said Mr. Hettinga: > It's beginning to look like venture capital is an >industrial phenomenon, requiring correspondingly long >ramp-up times, and it may be that geodesic markets move too >fast for any "consensus" of the investment community to be >achieved and, um, capitalized upon, soon enough to make >money on a consistent basis, or at least in the presence of >a savvy management team. Gotta love a guy who can write a sentence like that, knot and and double-knot it into a gangly tapestry -- and then glue the whole thing across a wonderful image like a "dirigible biplane." (That's a Hettinga vehicle is ever there was one. Even in the imagination, it pushes or pulls large amounts of gas around in an unusually muscular way;-) Suerte, _Vin ----- "Cryptography is like literacy in the Dark Ages. Infinitely potent, for good and ill... yet basically an intellectual construct, an idea, which by its nature will resist efforts to restrict it to bureaucrats and others who deem only themselves worthy of such Privilege." _ A Thinking Man's Creed for Crypto _vbm. * Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + <vin(a)shore.net> * 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548

4 8

Re: Censored news topic censored ...
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't speak up here much but I can't let this go: the next time you hear William Buckley on the Commonwealth Club broadcast on NPR, or hear the almost-commercial-broadcast-length squibs that pretend to be underwriter attributions but which are really tiny little commercials for ADM "Supermarket to the World" or Wells Fargo "Making Your Time Count," ask yourself who NPR is really working for, and set your expectations accordingly. Then send your checks to Pacifica to support free-speech radio. At 03:00 PM 10/22/98 -0700, Mark Hedges wrote: > >It sounds like even the enlightened folks at NPR don't have the guts >to stand up and say something about issues as critical as expanded >FBI powers over citizens and the sneaky tricks used to pass those laws. > >It's not really a big surprise, though. Monica Lewinsky's blowjobs >take precedence over incredulous claims like 'NSA SPIES ON EVERYONE' >and 'FBI MONITORS YOU WITHOUT WARRANTS'. > >They will have to live with their own lack of character. So will we. > >Mark Hedges > > >At 1:13 PM -0700 10/22/98, Ernest Hua wrote: >>Dear TOTN at NPR, >> >>This is most distressing. I was one of the very first >>callers to your Talk of the Nation show today whose >>topic was relevant news reporting in the US. My topic >>was the lack of reporting on the FBI's last minute >>sneak of the roving wire tap proposal into the >>intelligence budget bill. I wanted Ray to talk about >>the editorial process and how these things get dropped >>on the floor as this item is extremely important to >>our democracy because it is an agency charged with >>protecting our Constitutional rights (the FBI) who is >>deliberately circumventing the democratic legislative >>process to pass a law which was sounded defeated two >>years ago in open debate. >> >>Ironically, my topic was censored, and I waited an >>hour, while other people wanted to discuss things >>like how they can vent about their divorce >>difficulties through the Monica Lewinsky scandal, only >>to be dropped in the end. >> >>Would any of the NPR staff or Mr. Suarez would like >>to explain just what happened here? >> >>Ern >> >>-------- >>Ernest Hua, TeraLogic Inc, 1300 Villa St, Mountain View, CA 94041 >>(650) 526-6064, hua(a)teralogic-inc.com > > > >________________________________________________________________ > Mark Hedges hedges(a)infopeace.com www.infopeace.com > > "One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard > a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish > a dictatorship." O'Brien from 1984, George Orwell >________________________________________________________________ > > > >

1 0

echelon in UK
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

echelon is getting a *lot* of european coverage in their newspapers and magazines over the last few weeks/months. I find this quite remarkable. here in the US where we pride ourselves on civil freedom, the public does not even *squeak* about the massive NSA superstructure. but the european community is starting to get fidgety and uppity. I sincerely hope that this pressure can be increased. it would be quite ironic if the nsa began to feel heat by *outside* countries, without the slightest raised eyebrow by the submissive, prostrate US taxpayer even as they suck up something like 50 odd billion dollars a year out of our budget without a trace. personally I think an awesome cypherpunk project/campaign would be an info-fight against the NSA. a guerrila style campaign in which people try to plaster the message everywhere, and "hack" the mainstream media. the time is ripe, with the echelon brouhaha. it's a pity that hackers spend their time fighting over somethig like Kevin Mitnick when they could truly change the us govt as we know it. I propose a continued, cyberguerilla campaign to put the NSA into the public light and make them squirm as much as a spook can do so (and I'm certain they are *very* squirmy)

1 0

IP: Enhanced Ability to Tap Cell Phones
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Enhanced Ability to Tap Cell Phones Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 11:21:56 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/washtech/cell1022.htm Federal Plan Would Enhance Police Ability to Tap Cell Phones By Jeannine Aversa Associated Press Writer Thursday, October 22, 1998; 11:16 a.m. EDT WASHINGTON - Law enforcement officials say they need to know where a suspected criminal is when he makes a cellular telephone call. Federal regulators are proposing to give them the capability to find out. The Federal Communications Commission without dissent proposed today that cellular phone companies make technical changes so the FBI, police and other law enforcers - as long as a court approves - can locate a person talking on a mobile phone. This and other additional wiretapping capabilities being proposed aim to help law enforcers keep pace with technology. With some 66 million cellular phone customers, police want the authority to legally tap cell phones to track down drug dealers, terrorists and kidnappers. But some groups worry that such a practice could violate privacy. The location proposal is part of a larger plan to implement a 1994 law that requires telecommunications companies to make changes in their networks so police are able to carry out court-ordered wiretaps in a world of digital technology. The proposal is based on a plan from the telecommunications industry. "We think this is a positive step forward," said Stephen Colgate, the Justice Department's assistant attorney general for administration. "In many kidnapping cases, it would have been very helpful to have location information." But James Dempsey, counsel to the Center for Democracy and Technology, a privacy group, said: "We're prepared to fight this one every step of the way." FCC Chairman Bill Kennard stressed that police would have no access to locations without a court order. "A lot of people are saying the FCC will turn mobile phones into tracking devices for the FBI and invade Americans' privacy. I don't believe that will be the case," Kennard said. With a court order, police already can legally listen in to cell phone conversations, and, in some instances, get information on the caller's location. But not every company has the technical ability to provide a caller's location. This proposal, if adopted, would set up a nationwide requirement for companies to follow. The legal standard for obtaining a location is lower than the standard for a wiretap order in which police must show a judge there is probable cause of criminal activity. Under the proposal, police would only need to show the location is relevant to an investigation. Privacy groups say that means the government could easily track the movements not only of a suspect, but also of associates, friends or relatives. It would give police the ability to obtain the cellular phone user's location at the beginning and end of a wiretapped call. The proposal would provide police with that information based on the cellular tower, or "cell" site, where a call originated and ended. That would give information on the caller's location within several city blocks in an urban area to hundreds of square miles in a rural area. The FBI had been seeking more exact location information. The FCC also is expected to tentatively conclude that companies must give police, as long as a court approves, additional capabilities - beyond minimum technical standards already proposed by the industry - so their ability to conduct wiretaps won't be thwarted. The additional capabilities being sought by the FBI that were advanced by the FCC include: -Giving police the ability to listen in on the conversations of all people on a conference call, even if some are put on hold and no longer talking to the target of a wiretap. -Giving police the ability to get information when the wiretap target has put someone on hold or dropped someone from a conference call; and to know if the wiretap target has used dialing features - such as call waiting or call forwarding. -Giving police the number dialed by a wiretap target when the suspect, for instance, uses a credit or calling card at a pay phone. Privacy groups and the telephone industry contend the additional capabilities sought by the FBI go beyond the 1994 law and are an attempt to broaden wiretapping powers. The FBI says it merely wants to preserve the ability to conduct legal wiretaps in a world of constantly changing technology. The FCC is involved because the Justice Department, FBI and the telecommunications industry, after three years of negotiations, were unable to reach agreement on the larger plan for implementing the 1994 law. All interested parties will get a chance to offer opinions on the proposal, which could be revised. Kennard wants a final plan adopted by the end of the year. © Copyright 1998 The Associated Press ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

2 1