James Kallstrom (FBI-NY) in The Washington Post:
"We've never done that many" taps at one time, he said. But in a "worst-case scenario," such as a major act of terrorism, the agency might need such ability, he said. "I think it's a reasonable, minimal, conservative number."
In other words, they'll "round up the usual suspects" ? Mr. Sose to a White Courtesy Telephone, please. The argument above is very different (and IMHO much less defensible for the FBI) than the claim that the LEAs will in general have more investigations in progress that require wiretapping. A gradual increase in wiretap orders in a given area could plausibly happen as more and more interesting traffic goes over the wire. But a sudden jump in activity after a crime has been committed looks like a big fishing expedition. In particular, I fear that judges will be more disposed to sign stacks of wiretap orders indiscriminately in the aftermath of a major act of violence. -Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>