The Washington Post February 24, 1994 Business Section, first page FBI, Justice Seek High-Tech Surveillance Guarantees by John Mintz and John Schwartz Washington Post Staff Writers The FBI and the Justice Department are fearful that increasing sophistication in communications technology will keep investigators from tapping phones and computers and are seeking legislative guarantees that wiretaps will continue to be technically possible. The Bush administration proposed a similar bill in 1992, but withdrew it after industry officials and civil libertarians bitterly denounced it. Although the Clinton administration's new version differs in some ways from the old one, opponents said it too is flawed. Administration officials will outline their proposal today at the White House for communications executives. "We see this bill as a potential blueprint for an electronic surveillance society," said Jerry Berman, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and spokesman for a coalition of civil-liberties groups and high-technology firms. FBI Director Louis J. Freeh said in a speech last week that the new technologies and a "lack of support" by some communications executives mean "the country will be unable to protect itself against terrorism, violent crime, foreign threats, drug trafficking, espionage" and other crimes. Berman said that designing peepholes into the nation's rapidly expanding information infrastructure will do far more than guarantee law enforcement agencies the ability to tap phones. As more and more activities of everyday life go "on-line" -- from home banking to video-on-demand selections -- the initiative would provide snoopers with a profile of how citizens live, work and play, he said. The new bill would give the attorney general broad power to demand that communications gear be designed to guarantee that investigators would have access to it, and sets stiff penalties for firms that don't comply. The bill would allow the attorney general to seek fines of $10,000 a day for firms that don't provide access or, in some cases, to shut them down. A copy of the bill and the administration's analysis have been obtained by The Washington Post. Industry executives voiced concern that redesigning U.S. communications networks to accommodate the proposed legislation would cost more than the FBI's $300 million estimate. Under the FBI plan, taxpayers, not telephone ratepayers, would foot the bill. The FBI and the Justice Department say the initiative would not expand their power, but would ensure access to the type of communications they have been entitled to tap for years. Administration officials say such authority was granted in 1970 amendments to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. But the communications industry at that time consisted mostly of AT&T. Not only has technology become more complex, but a host of new players have entered the field, including the "Baby Bell" regional phone companies, cable firms, computer companies and more. The FBI is concerned about a host of new phone services, including "call forwarding," under which calls are bounced from phone to phone and, in turn, defeat investigators searching for a call's final destination. Moreover, the FBI says many cellular phone systems provide only limited "ports," or entryways, for tapping. In the mid-1980s, New York City's cellular system provided only five "ports" for tapping, meaning investigators often waited in line. The new bill dropped a requirement in the 1992 proposal that would have insisted that corporate switchboards accommodate wiretaps. The new bill applies mainly to "common carriers." That term usually refers to phone firms or transportation companies, but in this bill could be interpreted to include cable firms and others. Computer and telecommunications equipment firms also would be required to provide access for investigators. The bill would require phone firms, on law enforcement's request, to provide up-to-the-second records on every call to and from any phone. The new bill would allow investigators to gather the information more quickly than ever before, and from their offices. Under current law and under the new bill, investigators can obtain such data relatively easily -- by persuading a judge that it's "relevant" to an ongoing criminal probe. Philip Servidea, government affairs director for AT&T, said the company has long believed a new law is unnecessary. "The legislation will have to have come a long sight from the last version to be acceptable," he said. "This makes the development of the communications industry a law enforcement matter," said Janlori Goldman, a privacy expert at the American Civil Liberties Union. "We're very concerned." Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said that while he looks forward to working with Freeh to update wiretap laws, giving the government "final say in how far and how fast technology advances" could "jeopardize the legitimate concerns of business."