[comp.society.privacy fwd] Wiretaps without warrants

[Valerie Lambert]

I wasn't sure if I should forward this or not...  should I assume that most
every cypherpunk with usenet access keeps an eye on comp.society.privacy?

I found this article surprising; I wasn't even aware that there was any
such bill in Congress.  It seems that the FBI is busy chipping away at
privacy on many fronts.

So, how good is the argument that Clipper keys are held safely in escrow
awaiting a warrant, if no warrant is required to gain a legal wiretap?

----- begin forwarded message -----

From:  David Brierley <davidbri at lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>
Newsgroups:  comp.society.privacy
Subject:  Wiretaps without warrants
Path:  portal!uunet!computer-privacy-request
Date:  Wed, 28 Apr 1993 01:54:13 GMT
Message-ID:  <comp-privacy2.39.1 at pica.army.mil>
Organization:  Division of Academic Computing, Northeastern University,
	        Boston, MA. 02115 USA
Sender:  comp-privacy at pica.army.mil
Approved:  comp-privacy at pica.army.mil
X-Submissions-To:  comp-privacy at pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To:  comp-privacy-request at pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest:  Volume 2, Issue 039, Message 1 of 7

     Sorry to get this out so late, but better late than never.  It is
from the Boston Sunday Globe of April 11, 1993, page 16.

 -------------------------
New England Votes in Congress

Roll Call Report Syndicate


WASHINGTON - This is how New England members of Congress were recorded
on major roll-call votes last week.

 ...

TO EXPAND FBI PHONE ACCESS:

By a vote of 367-6, the House sent the Senate a bill expanding the FBI's
power to obtain, without court warrants, telephone records and
conversations in investigations of international terrorism and
espionage.  The bill grants the FBI access in such investigations to
information on unlisted numbers that phone companies cannot now divulge.
It also enables FBI counterintelligence agents to obtain a broader
range of telephone conversations involving suspected terrorists and
spies.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Connecticut: Voting yes: Kennelly, Gejdenson, Shays, Franks, Johnson. 
Not voting: DeLauro.

Maine: Voting yes: Andrews, Snowe.

Massachusetts: Voting yes: Neal, Blute, Frank, Meehan, Torkildsen,
Markey, Kennedy, Moakley, Studds.  Not voting: Olver.

New Hampshire: Voting yes: Swett.  Not voting: Zeliff.

Rhode Island: Voting yes: Machtley, Reed.

Vermont: Not voting: Sanders.

 ...
    
----- end forwarded message -----

--
Valerie Lambert * valerie at biocad.com * 415/903-3923 * "The world hates
change, yet it is the only thing that has brought progress."  --Charles
Kettering