Reading the discussion I see that the amendment calls for inclusion of 'terrorist activies' into Title III which allows wiretapping under Court order, not anything about warrantless wiretapping. I did not perform all the text substitutions of the amemdment itself though. However in the language of the amendment all references that I read are to activities under court order. Please indicate the wider circumstances, particularly the warrantless circumstances, that this amendment allows cybertapping under, for those of us without your time or acumen in editing the existing Title III language. You also did not quote this: "One of the most effective investigative tools at the disposal of law enforcement agencies is the ability to go to a Federal judge and get wiretapping authority. It is critical in matters such as this. That is the ability to intercept oral or electronic conversations involving the subject of a criminal investigation. The legislative scheme that provides this authority, and at the same time protects the individual liberties of American citizens to be secure against unwarranted government surveillance, is referred to in the criminal code as Title III. Among the many protections inherent in Title III is that only the investigations of certain criminal offenses, those judged to be sufficiently serious to warrant the use of this potent crime-fighting weapon, are eligible for wiretapping orders. The law lays out a number of crimes deemed by Congress to be serious enough to warrant allowing the FBI to intercept electronic and oral communications. Title III currently allows interception of communications in connection with the investigation of such crimes as mail fraud, wire fraud, and the interstate transportation of stolen property. Inexplicably, however, the Federal terrorism statutes are not currently included in Title III. I have been complaining about this for a long time and this is the time to correct it."
Text of the Hatch-Feinstein "Combating Terrorism Act of 2001": http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cta.091401.html
Discussion of the amendment: http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/s091301.html
-Declan
********
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46852,00.html
Senate OKs FBI Net Spying By Declan McCullagh (declan@wired.com) 12:55 p.m. Sep. 14, 2001 PDT
WASHINGTON -- FBI agents soon may be able to spy on Internet users legally without a court order.
On Thursday evening, two days after the worst terrorist attack in U.S.
history, the Senate approved the "Combating Terrorism Act of 2001," which enhances police wiretap powers and permits monitoring in more situations.
The measure, proposed by Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Dianne Feinstein (D-California), says any U.S. attorney or state attorney general can order the installation of the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system. Previously, there were stiffer restrictions on Carnivore and other Internet surveillance techniques.
Its bipartisan sponsors argue that such laws are necessary to thwart terrorism. "It is essential that we give our law enforcement authorities every possible tool to search out and bring to justice those individuals who have brought such indiscriminate death into our backyard," Hatch said during the debate on the Senate floor.
[...]
-----Original Message----- From: owner-cypherpunks@lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@lne.com]On Behalf Of citizenQ Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 5:54 PM To: cypherpunks@lne.com Subject: No Subject
Reading the discussion I see that the amendment calls for inclusion of 'terrorist activies' into Title III which allows wiretapping under Court order, not anything about warrantless wiretapping. I did not perform all the text substitutions of the amemdment itself though. However in the language of the amendment all references that I read are to activities under court order.
Please indicate the wider circumstances, particularly the warrantless circumstances, that this amendment allows cybertapping under, for those of us without your time or acumen in editing the existing Title III language.
(c) EMERGENCY INSTALLATION.-- (1) AUTHORITY FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.--Section 3125(a) of that title is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1)-- (A) by striking ``or any Deputy Assistant Attorney General,'' and inserting ``any Deputy Assistant Attorney General, or any United States Attorney,''. (2) EXPANSION OF EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES.--Section 3125(a)(1) of that title is amended-- (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end; (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the comma at the end and inserting a semicolon; and (C) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraphs: ``(C) immediate threat to the national security interests of the United States; ``(D) immediate threat to public health or safety; or ``(E) an attack on the integrity or availability of a protected computer which attack would be an offense punishable under section 1030(c)(2)(C) of this title,''.
You also did not quote this: "One of the most effective investigative tools at the disposal of law enforcement agencies is the ability to go to a Federal judge and get wiretapping authority. It is critical in matters such as this. That is the ability to intercept oral or electronic conversations involving the subject of a criminal investigation. The legislative scheme that provides this authority, and at the same time protects the individual liberties of American citizens to be secure against unwarranted government surveillance, is referred to in the criminal code as Title III. Among the many protections inherent in Title III is that only the investigations of certain criminal offenses, those judged to be sufficiently serious to warrant the use of this potent crime-fighting weapon, are eligible for wiretapping orders. The law lays out a number of crimes deemed by Congress to be serious enough to warrant allowing the FBI to intercept electronic and oral communications. Title III currently allows interception of communications in connection with the investigation of such crimes as mail fraud, wire fraud, and the interstate transportation of stolen property. Inexplicably, however, the Federal terrorism statutes are not currently included in Title III. I have been complaining about this for a long time and this is the time to correct it."
This is somewhat of a mistatement considering the breadth of 2516.>
participants (2)
-
Aimee Farr -
citizenQ