[1] FBI Wiretap Claims Questioned Ever since it first proposed "Digital Telephony" legislation in 1992, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has claimed that wiretapping enables law enforcement agencies to prevent billions of dollars in economic loss. Most recently, in a briefing book on the proposed legislation dated March 8, 1994, the Bureau stated that "[t]he economic benefit from the continued use of electronic surveillance (fines, recoveries, restitution, forfeitures and prevented economic loss) is in the billions of dollars per year." These FBI figures are derived from a cost-benefit analysis the Bureau drafted in May 1992 to justify the substantial cost the telecommunications industry would need to bear in order to comply with the legislation. Among other things, the FBI analysis claimed that electronic surveillance had prevented more than $1.8 billion in "potential economic loss" between 1985 and 1991. CPSR has now obtained government documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that raise substantial questions as to the accuracy of these numbers. The documents contain comments on the Bureau's cost-benefit analysis from various components of the federal government, including the White House. These internal critiques of the FBI analysis include the following: * May 22, 1992 memo from the White House: "The analysis should make consistent assumptions with respect to both costs and benefits. The benefits analysis should reflect clearly that only some cases involve electronic surveillance; that some surveillance could continue in the absence of this legislation (at least for some period of years); and that some convictions could probably still be obtained absent surveillance." ... "The analysis does not consider the existence of or the potential for other forms of surveillance that might compensate for the reduction in telephone wiretapping capabilities." ... "On p. 4 and p. 6, certain figures representing 'prevented potential economic loss' are cited. Please explain what losses are encompassed in those figures and how they are calculated." ------------------------------------------------------ * May 22, 1992 memo from Office of the Vice President: "In several places in the analysis, figures are cited without reference to their sources or to how they were derived. For example, on p. 4 a figure of $1.8 billion is cited for potential economic loss. ..." ------------------------------------------------------ * May 26, 1992 memo from Treasury Department: "It is difficult to do a critical analysis of DOJ's cost benefit package without a full explanation of how DOJ arrived at its cost/benefit figures, and what costs and benefits were included in those figures. It is not clear that DOJ knows, or could know, all the costs and benefits involved, but this should be clearly stated." ------------------------------------------------------ In addition to these new documents, industry officials at a Congressional hearing on March 18 sharply questioned the FBI's figures. Roy Neel, President of the US Telephone Association, disputed the FBI's figures that the bill would only cost around 300 million, citing that just revising call forwarding would cost an estimated $1.8 billion. ----------------------------------------------------------------