>From Interesting People...
------- Start of forwarded message -------
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 18:15:49 -0700
From: Dave Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IP: FBI insists it can tap e-mail without a warrant
>
>Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 19:13:09 -0600
>To: Dave Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Brett Glass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: For IP: FBI insists it can tap e-mail without a warrant
>
>Feds: No warrants for Net wiretaps
>By Mike Brunker, MSNBC
>May 17, 2000 7:20 AM PT
>
>URL:
>http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2570897,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews01
>
>In a case with broad implications for communications technology, lawyers
>for the Justice Department and a coalition of telecommunications and
>privacy groups square off in federal court Wednesday to argue whether the
>FBI should be allowed to intercept Internet communications and pinpoint
>the locations of cellular phone users without first obtaining a search warrant.
>
>At issue in the proceedings before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington
>are rules issued last year by the Federal Communication Commission
>spelling out how telecommunications providers will be required to comply
>with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), passed
>by Congress in 1994.
>
>Among other things, the act requires telecommunications equipment
>manufacturers and service providers to build into their systems the
>capability for surveillance of telephone line and cellular communications,
>as well as of services such as advanced paging, specialized mobile radio
>and satellite-based systems.
>
>After telecommunications providers were unable to reach agreement with FBI
>officials on how to implement the monitoring capabilities, the FCC adopted
>rules that in several areas went beyond the CALEA language - including a
>requirement that cellular phones be traceable and that information on any
>digits dialed after a call is connected, which could include such things
>as account or credit-card numbers or call-forwarding instructions, must be
>provided.
>
>Warrant not required
>
>As interpreted by the FCC, the act also would require telecommunications
>providers to turn over "packet-mode communications" - such as those that
>carry Internet traffic - without the warrant required for a phone wiretap.
>
>Taken in total, the FCC rules amount to a "significant expansion" of law
>enforcement's ability to monitor private communication, said Jim Dempsey,
>senior staff counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology.
>
>"We're arguing that given the constitutional right to privacy, and given
>Congress' concern about protecting that privacy that it was wrong for the
>FCC to broadly interpret this statute to give more surveillance powers to
>law enforcement," he said.
>
>...
>
>
>"Rules? This is the Internet." -- Dan Gillmor
>
------- End of forwarded message -------
