I realize that this has already been an old topic amonst you folks, but I just wanted to post a summary I found rather striking and an issue I know still leaves a bad taste in our collective mouths - "Threats to Privacy", "FBIs Wiretapping Proposal Thwarted", extracted from Boardwatch Magazine, February, 1993, pages 19 - 22 ( BBS Legislative Watch, Shari Steele, EFF) - "In a move that worried privacy experts, software manufacturers and telephone companies, the FBI proposed legislation to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to make it easier for the Bureau to perform electronic wiretappiing. The proposed legislation, entitled 'Digital Telephony,' would have required communications service providers and hardware manufacturers to make their systems 'tappable' by providing 'back doors' through which law enforcement officers could intercept communications. Furthermore, this capability would have been provided undetectably, while the communications was in progress, exclusive of any communications between other parties, regardless of the mobility of the target of the FBI's investigation, and without degradation of service. "The privacy implications are frightening. Today, all sorts of information about who we are and what we do, such as medical records, credit reports and employment data, are held on electronic databases. If these databases have government-mandated 'tappability,' this private information could be accessed by anyone tapping in. In addition, the language in the proposed bill is vague. This is especially troubling since, under the proposal, the Department of Justice (DOJ) can keep communications products off the market if it determines that these products do not meet the DOJ's own vague guidelines. This will probably result in increased costs and reduced competitiveness for service providers and equipment manufacturers, since they will be unlikely to add any features that may result in a DOJ rejection of their entire product. And to add insult to injury, the FBI proposal suggests that the cost of this wiretapping 'service' to the Bureau would have to be borne by the service provider itself, which ultimately means you and I will be paying higher user fees. "The Electronic Frontier Foundation organized a broad coalition of public interest and industry groups, from Computer Professionals for Social Responsibilty (CPSR) and the ACLU to AT&T and Sun Microsystems, to oppose the legislation. A white paper produced by the EFF and ratified by the coalition, entitled, 'An Analysis of the FBI Digital Telephony Proposal,' was widely distributed throughout the Congress. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Representative Don Edwards (D-California), chairs of two key committees, referred to the EFF paper as they delayed the introduction of the FBI's proposal. As Leahy stated before the Senate, 'Our goal is to assist law enforcement,' but 'without jeopardizing privacy rights or frustrating the development of new communications technologies.' The Justice Department lobbied hard in the final days to get Congress to take up the bill before Congress adjourned, but the bill never even found a Congressional sponsor (and was therefore never officially introduced). The FBI will almost certainly reintroduce "Digital Telephony" when the 103rd Congress convenes in January." 8<------------ End Article -------------- Take a stance. Voice your opinion. Write your congressman! Paul Ferguson | "Sincerity is fine, but it's no Network Integration Consultant | excuse for stupidity." Alexandria, Virginia USA | -- Anonymous fergp@sytex.com (Internet) | sytex.com!fergp (UUNet) | 1:109/229 (FidoNet) | PGP public encryption key available upon request. --- fergp@sytex.com (Paul Ferguson) Access <=> Internet BBS, a public access internet site Sytex Communications, Arlington VA, 1-703-358-9022
participants (1)
-
fergp@sytex.com