------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:01:03 -0500 From: Al Thompson <alt@iquest.net> To: Multiple recipients of list NEWS <NEWS@AEN.ORG> Subject: (Check out this excerpt from the recent committee report on S735. Here's the header info. -AT) [Congressional Record: April 17, 1996 (Senate)] [Page S3454-S3478]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report. (A bunch deleted. Here's one of the interesting parts -AT) Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what I would like to speak to in an indirect way covers this. We have had several votes on wiretaps, and I know people are asking why am I introducing the other wiretap provision that was taken out of the Senate bill. The reason I am is I refuse to believe that, if you all hear this enough, you will not eventually decide to do the right thing on this. The provision that I have proposed is not original with me. It was in the Senate bill that we passed. The provision would add a number--the bill we have before us, the conference report--would add a number of terrorism-related offenses to the law. I will go into those in a minute. What I have sent to the desk, if adopted, would instruct the conferees to add the same number of offenses that we are adding to the bill, to the law, to those categories of things for which the Government, with probable cause, can get a wiretap. It was in the Senate bill as introduced by Senators Hatch and Dole. It was part of the terrorism bill reported out of Representative Hyde's Judiciary Committee. Unfortunately, by the time the bill had made it to the House, the provision was dropped. I think it is worth talking a moment about how a wiretap statute works, the one that is in place now in the law, for it seems there is a lot of misunderstanding about it these days. I am repeating myself again to eliminate the misunderstanding. As some people tell it, you would think the FBI and BATF and the local and State police are tapping our phones left and right, that they are riding down the streets in vans with electronic devices eavesdropping into our windows and houses--which they have the capacity to do, by the way.
On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, the intrepid anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com FUDded to cypherpunks:
[Congressional Record: April 17, 1996 (Senate)] [Page S3454-S3478]
[fascinating but probably out-of-context remarks from Biden, suggesting that we should all don our tin-foil hats in fear of the FBI rabdar vans, deleted] I cannot find the referenced remarks. Assuming the selection is accurate, it is abundantly clear that Binden continued speaking beyond where you so ominously chose to cut him off. Could you give me a *specific* URL? Or a way to get static page number URLs? I can only figure out how to search http://thomas.loc.gov/ and get temp URLs. I *did* read Biden's *highly entertaining* comments on the contentious Internet Baby Food Bomb Issue, from the conference report mentioned by the redoubtable Mr. Anonymous. Thanks so much for pointing me to this debate; it almost makes still being in my office worthwile. Does anyone know the documents that Senator Biden is quoting? I *must know* how to build The Dreaded Baby-Food Bomb. **I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. THIS IS YOUR UNITED STATES SENATE AT WORK.**
From the April 17th Congressional Record, what page I unfortunately cant tell you, because Thomas and/or I suck:
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use within the limit of the time I have. This provision is very straightforward and simple. It is beyond me why it was taken out of the Senate version of the language that was sent to the House. I have heard many colleagues stand up on the floor here and rail against pornography on the Internet, and for good reason. Even when we thought we had corrected the language that Senator Exon introduced to comport with the first amendment, I still hear in my State, and I hear of people writing about how so and so is promoting pornography on the Internet because they will not ban pornography on the Internet. Yet, in the bill, we came along--all of us here--and the genesis of this came from Senator Feinstein, when it was initially offered. The majority leader, Senator Hatch, and I had some concerns with this, and we thought the language to ban teaching people how to make bombs on the Internet or engage in terrorist activities on the Internet might violate the first amendment. Senators Dole, Hatch, and I worked to tighten the language and came up with language that was tough and true to civil liberties. It was accepted by unanimous consent. We have all heard about the bone-chilling information making its way over the Internet, about explicit instructions about how to detonate pipe bombs and even, if you can believe it, baby food bombs. Senator Feinstein quoted an Internet posting that detailed how to build and explode one of these things, which concludes that `If the explosion don't get'em, the glass will. If the glass don't get'em, the nails will.' I would like to give you a couple of illustrations of the kinds of things that come across the Internet. This is one I have in my hand which was downloaded. It said, `Baby food bombs by War Master.' And this is actually downloaded off the Internet. It says: These simple, powerful bombs are not very well known, even though all of the materials can be obtained by anyone (including minors). These things are so-- I will delete a word because it is an obscenity. powerful that they can destroy a CAR. The explosion can actually twist and mangle the frame. They are extremely deadly and can very easily kill you and blow the side of a house out if you mess up while building it. Here is how they work. This is on the Internet now. It says: Go to Sports Authority or Herman's Sport Shop and buy shotgun shells. It is by the hunting section. At the Sports Authority that I go to you can actually buy shotgun shells without a parent or an adult. They don't keep it behind the glass counter, or anything like that. It is $2.96 for 25 shells. And then it says: Now for the hard part. You must cut open the plastic housing of the bullet to get to the sweet nectar that is the gun powder. The place where you can cut is CRUCIAL. It means a difference between it blowing up in your face or not. Then there is a diagram, which is shown as to how to do that on the Internet. Then it says: You must not make the cut directly where the gun powder is, or it will explode. You cut it where the pellets are. And then it goes through this in detail. And then it gets to the end, and it says: Did I mention that this is also highly illegal? Unimportant stuff that is cool to know. And then it rates shotgun shells by two numbers, gauge, pellet size, and goes into great detail. It is like building an erector set. It does it in detail. -rich
You have to be pretty damn stupid if you need to go out and surf the 'net to find out that gunpowder can be found in shotgun shells. Big news flash: you can find fertilzer at the hardware store, rust on your daddy's Chevy, and bird doodoo in the back yard. Anybody who wants to figure out how to make explosives and CAN'T is too stupid to have graduated from high school (and probably too stupid to navigate the 'net). They're much more likely to go down to the local surplus store, and learn all this out of old U.S. military training manuals than to find it on the 'net. Who voted for these morons? They are only doing this because anything involving the 'net will get their NAMES IN THE NEWS. ---------------------------------------- Rabid Wombat wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org ---------------------------------------- On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Rich Graves wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, the intrepid anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com FUDded to cypherpunks:
[Congressional Record: April 17, 1996 (Senate)] [Page S3454-S3478]
[fascinating but probably out-of-context remarks from Biden, suggesting that we should all don our tin-foil hats in fear of the FBI rabdar vans, deleted]
I cannot find the referenced remarks. Assuming the selection is accurate, it is abundantly clear that Binden continued speaking beyond where you so ominously chose to cut him off. Could you give me a *specific* URL? Or a way to get static page number URLs? I can only figure out how to search http://thomas.loc.gov/ and get temp URLs.
I *did* read Biden's *highly entertaining* comments on the contentious Internet Baby Food Bomb Issue, from the conference report mentioned by the redoubtable Mr. Anonymous. Thanks so much for pointing me to this debate; it almost makes still being in my office worthwile.
Does anyone know the documents that Senator Biden is quoting? I *must know* how to build The Dreaded Baby-Food Bomb.
**I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. THIS IS YOUR UNITED STATES SENATE AT WORK.**
From the April 17th Congressional Record, what page I unfortunately cant tell you, because Thomas and/or I suck:
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use within the limit of the time I have.
This provision is very straightforward and simple. It is beyond me why it was taken out of the Senate version of the language that was sent to the House.
I have heard many colleagues stand up on the floor here and rail against pornography on the Internet, and for good reason. Even when we thought we had corrected the language that Senator Exon introduced to comport with the first amendment, I still hear in my State, and I hear of people writing about how so and so is promoting pornography on the Internet because they will not ban pornography on the Internet.
Yet, in the bill, we came along--all of us here--and the genesis of this came from Senator Feinstein, when it was initially offered. The majority leader, Senator Hatch, and I had some concerns with this, and we thought the language to ban teaching people how to make bombs on the Internet or engage in terrorist activities on the Internet might violate the first amendment. Senators Dole, Hatch, and I worked to tighten the language and came up with language that was tough and true to civil liberties. It was accepted by unanimous consent.
We have all heard about the bone-chilling information making its way over the Internet, about explicit instructions about how to detonate pipe bombs and even, if you can believe it, baby food bombs. Senator Feinstein quoted an Internet posting that detailed how to build and explode one of these things, which concludes that `If the explosion don't get'em, the glass will. If the glass don't get'em, the nails will.'
I would like to give you a couple of illustrations of the kinds of things that come across the Internet. This is one I have in my hand which was downloaded. It said, `Baby food bombs by War Master.' And this is actually downloaded off the Internet. It says:
These simple, powerful bombs are not very well known, even though all of the materials can be obtained by anyone (including minors). These things are so--
I will delete a word because it is an obscenity.
powerful that they can destroy a CAR. The explosion can actually twist and mangle the frame. They are extremely deadly and can very easily kill you and blow the side of a house out if you mess up while building it. Here is how they work.
This is on the Internet now. It says:
Go to Sports Authority or Herman's Sport Shop and buy shotgun shells. It is by the hunting section. At the Sports Authority that I go to you can actually buy shotgun shells without a parent or an adult. They don't keep it behind the glass counter, or anything like that. It is $2.96 for 25 shells.
I don't know where this might be - it is illegal in most states to sell ammunition to minors. I'm guessing that it is illegal in all states, (though Texas has some interesting views). I used to have to send my mother to the store for .38 wadcutters ...
And then it says:
Now for the hard part. You must cut open the plastic housing of the bullet to get to the sweet nectar that is the gun powder. The place where you can cut is CRUCIAL. It means a difference between it blowing up in your face or not.
Then there is a diagram, which is shown as to how to do that on the Internet. Then it says:
You must not make the cut directly where the gun powder is, or it will explode. You cut it where the pellets are.
Yeah, I think every kid I grew up with did this by the time they were 10 years old. Back when there were about 10 computers on the internet, and none of us had ever seen one. When we were younger, we used to spend hours extracting gunpowder from the paper strips used in toy cap pistols and cutting the heads off matches. I wouldn't want my kids playing with things like this, but your kid is an idiot if they need to surf the 'net to figure out that gunpowder can be found in ammunition.
And then it goes through this in detail. And then it gets to the end, and it says:
Did I mention that this is also highly illegal? Unimportant stuff that is cool to know.
And then it rates shotgun shells by two numbers, gauge, pellet size, and goes into great detail. It is like building an erector set. It does it in detail.
-rich
On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, some anonymous FUDder sent us this:
------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:01:03 -0500 From: Al Thompson <alt@iquest.net> To: Multiple recipients of list NEWS <NEWS@AEN.ORG> Subject:
[Congressional Record: April 17, 1996 (Senate)] [Page S3454-S3478]
Specifically, page S3455. But the quote is so out of context as to be inaccurate. For an accurate record of Senator Biden's remarks, plus the full text of the Baby-Food Bomb and Unabomber Wannabe documents, you want to follow the *second* of the *two* TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT links on: http://thomas.loc.gov/r104/r104s17ap6.html I think the following is a permanent URL, but I'm sure you can't make hard links any deeper: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r104:S17AP6-332: Also note that this speech concerns an amendment to S735 that FAILED. I.e., the language for which the esteemed [snort] Mr. Biden is arguing IS NOT IN THE BILL AS PASSED BY THE SENATE.
[...] As some people tell it, you would think the FBI and BATF and the local and State police are tapping our phones left and right, that they are riding down the streets in vans with electronic devices eavesdropping into our windows and houses--which they have the capacity to do, by the way.
Mr. Biden's next sentence, which either Mr. Thompson or the anonymous forwarder conveniently left out, is "But that is just not the way it works." It should come as no surprise to anyone on the cypherpunks that such things are technically possible. But do they happen? Does even our friend Senator Joe "You Heard It Here First" Biden approve? Mr. Biden's speech continues, also conveniently left out by Mr. Thompson and the anonymous forwarder: That necessity requirement is meant to ensure that wiretapping is not the normal investigative technique, like physical surveillance or the use of informants. These are very serious protections, Mr. President. I believe that interposing a court between the prosecutor and the wiretap is a citizens' best protection. But even before we get to the judge who makes his decision, there is a very painstaking, stringent process within the Justice Department for determining when to seek a court authorization for a wiretap. First, the agent in the field, under the supervision of his or her supervisor, must write an affidavit, a sworn affidavit, that they must sign that sets out all the particular facts relating to probable cause, because even if an order is granted based on the agent, if he is lying, then that information is gone even if the judge issued the wiretap order. [...] This is painstaking. It is time consuming, as well it should be, for we want to make sure that wiretaps are used in only the most serious cases. We want to make sure that they are used only as a last resort when all other less intrusive techniques have failed, and we want to make sure that the Government is not making unwarranted intrusions into our privacy. But we also need to make sure that law enforcement has the tools, if they meet all these hurdles, to catch the bad guy. [...] You cannot get a wiretap, even if you do all the things I just said, unless you turn to the Criminal Code, and you have all these crimes listed in the Criminal Code. OK. You may find a crime in one section, and then you have to turn to another section, section 251, of the Criminal Code entitled, `Authorization for Interception of Wire, Oral or Electronic Communications.' And then you have to find there in subsection (c) the list of offenses for which you can get a wiretap. Not every crime is entitled to have a wiretap attached to it. So there we are. The next speech is by Orrin Hatch, who doesn't really address any of Biden's points, but that's OK, because I don't agree with them. Oh yeah, and Biden read the full text of the "Attention All Unabomber Wannabes" and "Babyfood Bombs" documents into the Congressional Record, supposedly to underscore the point that those nasty Republicans are endorsing such nasty nasty stuff. Sort of like Exon's little blue book. So if you want to know how to build a baby-food bomb, simply write your congresscritter. -rich
participants (3)
-
anonymous-remailerï¼ shell.portal.com -
Rabid Wombat -
Rich Graves