House Panel Questions FBI Implementation of Wiretap Law

[Steve Schear]

I doubt any of these revelations will come as a shock to list members.

--Steve

------------------

Excerpt from ACLU News 10-26-97

House Panel Questions FBI Implementation of Wiretap Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, October 23, 1997

WASHINGTON -- Amid growing concerns about privacy implications and
costs, a House subcommittee today questioned FBI implementation of a
controversial 1994 law that forced telephone companies help law
enforcement agencies gain access to digital phone lines for
surveillance operations.

During the four-hour hearing before the Crime Subcommittee of the House
Judiciary Committee, two Republicans -- Bob Barr of Georgia and Steve
Chabot of Ohio -- were harshly critical of the 1994 law, has
implemented it, saying it represents an enormous invasion of privacy
and could lead to a system of ongoing government surveillance.

Seconding those criticisms, the American Civil Liberties Union said
that safeguards originally implemented in the legislation have failed
to protect the American public. "The hearing today clearly revealed
that the FBI is embarked on a scheme to undermine the privacy of every
law-abiding American," said Donald Haines, a Legislative Counsel with
the ACLU's Washington National Office.

"From the very beginning, the FBI has flagrantly violated both the
process and the requirements set out in the legislation," Haines
added.  "The FBI has repeatedly sought to coerce the telecommunications
industry into changing its technology so that law enforcement agencies
could increase their wiretapping."

The 1994 telecommunications act is far from the only effort by the FBI
to gain backdoor access to private communications. In another ongoing
Congressional debate, the FBI is trying to impose restrictions on the
use of privacy-protecting encryption technology.

"Congress must squarely confront this persistent pattern of FBI and law
enforcement intrusions into our privacy," Haines said. "Congress should
act immediately to repeal the 1994 law, or, at an absolute minimum,
refuse to fund any implementation activities."