IP: FBI insists it can tap e-mail without a warrant

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 19:13:09 -0600
> To: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
> From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat org>
> 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