The DT bill just passed in the Senate.

[David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

Subject: Wiretap Watch FINAL EDITION (The DT bill has passed)




                            The Wiretap Watch
                                Final Issue
                              October 7, 1994
                             Distribute Widely


Recent Quotes:  (It's been a busy week, we've answered over 2,000 emails)


        "I think we should adjourn now [..] the country is safer when
         we're not in session."
                -Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) on C-SPAN


        "Senator Wallop's office, may I help you?"
        "Yes, I called to register my support for the Senator's
         concerned position on the bill."
        "Ok, got it.  Thanks"
        "Have there been a lot of calls today?  Dozens?  Fifty?"
        "Hundreds so far today."
                -A conversation I had earlier today with Sen. Wallop's
                 office


        "I called Feinstein again and the offical breakfast food is
         still a waffle."
                -Another California caller on Feinstein's FBI Wiretap
                 position




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents
        A look back at the bill
        What you should do right now
        Positions of legislators pro and con
        Status of the bills
        Brief explanation of the bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A LOOK BACK AT THE BILL


As you may have already discovered the Senate passed the bill tonight
on "unanimous consent".  Although I will leave the soothsaying to more
eloquent folks, there are a number of things that need to be said and
people that need to be thanked.


1. A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT WAS ACCOMPLISHED WITH THIS LEGISLATIVE FIGHT
During this campaign, we asked people to contact several legislators
about the bill.  This was a very effective means ofat mobilizing people.
When we put out the word that Senator Wallop needed support, hundreds of
calls were received the very next day -- their office was stunned.


This is the first time many of the sitting legislators learned that
constituents were concerned about privacy.  We have begun to teach
them that this is an important issue.  Educating a legislator is an
ongoing process that we'll continue to assist with in preparation for
the elections.  It would be great if legislators begin to consider what
effects their actions will have on "the privacy vote."


Sincere thanks go out to the literally thousands of people who took the
time to call their legislators.  The response we received to our alerts
was amazing.  The mail itself was overwhelming; the letters really
kept us going on those late nights.  When people wrote to us, saying
that they had faxed our press release to a dozen papers and called the
same number of legislators, it seemed inconceivable that we should let
something as minor as sleep slow us down.


Thanks to everyone who contributed by calling and faxing (and sending in
corrections).  It appears that our technique of providing excellent
information with the research done for the reader is a technique people
appreciate.  We'll continue to refine it in preparation for the next
legislative session.


2. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORSE
Much worse versions of the DT bill have been introduced.  They were all
killed before really getting anywhere.  When this version was brought up,
the EFF had a difficult decision in front of them: assume the soothsayers
were right about it passing this year and try to hack in some privacy
provisions, or try and mount a fight against it.  Other factors such as
organizational direction played a part in this decision I'm sure, but I'm
not qualified to talk about that.  (I'm about as far from an EFF insider
as you can get.)


There are several privacy provisions that have been added to the bill.
Had the EFF not intervened, they would not be there.  PERIOD.  I think
we owe them a thank you for that.


Did they really know what they were doing or was it a lucky guess?
Who's to say; we all have 20/20 hindsight.  When EFF made this
decision, it was months ago.  They were like an ace-in-the-hole should
the bill pass.


3. THIS IS STILL A PROCESS THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO MONITOR
There are several ways in which the powers in the bill could be abused
by law enforcement.  The bill provides law enforcement with unprecedented
assurance that a wiretap will always be available.  This will subtly
change the way law enforcement does its work.  ("When your most ubiqitous
tool in a hammer, the world starts to look a lot like nails..")


Furthermore the process for creating the wiretap functionality standards
truly rests in the hands of the FCC.  We have seen from past experience
with the CallerID blocking fiasco that the FCC is not the bastion
of privacy that we wish it was.  In that instance, there was significant
public outcry against the proposal, and yet privacy still lost.


What's the good news?  There are organizations who we can count on to
watchdog this process.  The EFF wrote most (if not all) of the privacy
provisions of the bill.  They will be in a great position to monitor
the progress of this process and ensure that not just the LETTER of
the privacy provisions are followed, but the SPIRIT as well.


Furthermore, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is
aggressive in their FOIA efforts, which keep our government honest.  I
sleep better at nights knowing they're keeping an eye out.  I would
have given my left foot to be in the courtroom this week with EPIC when
the FBI's counsel asked for a five year delay on releasing twenty
pages of wiretap data, and the judge told the attorney to "..call
Director Freeh and tell him I said this matter can be taken care of
in an hour and [a] half."


Finally, I want to take a moment to thank David Sobel, Marc Rotenberg,
& David Banisar of EPIC for all the help they gave us.  Not being in
DC, its difficult for us to simply "drop by" the office of a swing vote
legislator and present our arguments.  We're very grateful to them for
this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT YOU SHOULD DO RIGHT NOW


Nothing for the moment.  The Senate passed the Digital Telephony bill
(S. 2375) a few minutes before adjournment tonight.  The various holds
put on it by Republican Senators were removed and the bill passed on
"unanimous consent".  This means that there was no opposition to it.
President Clinton is almost certain to sign it.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUS


STATUS SB 2375
        It passed on the evening of Oct. 7 on unanimous consent literally
        minutes before the Congress adjourned.


STATUS HR 4922
        It passed on the evening of Oct. 5 on a voice vote.


Oct  7, 94  The Senate passed S. 2375 on unanimous consent minutes
            before adjournment.
Oct  6, 94  Nothing happened, though a Senate vote was expected.  Several
            Senators have placed holds on the bill.
Oct  5, 94  House passes HR 4922 on a voice vote.
Oct  4, 94  House is scheduled to vote on HR 4922, along with more than
            50 other items on the "suspension calendar".  The debate
            took place tonight; the House vote was put off until Oct 5, '94.
Oct  3, 94  Judge Richey instructs the FBI to comply with a FOIA request
            to make available their wiretap surveys (which they claim
            justify their bill) by Nov. 1.
Sep 29, 94  HR 4922 marked up and reported out of the Hse. Jud. Comm
            and nearly to the full House
Sep 28, 94  SB 2375 amended, marked up, and reported out of the Sen. Jud.
            Comm. to the full Senate
Sep 15, 94  HR 4922 hearing held in the Telecommunications Comm.
Aug 18, 94  HR 4922 reported back to committee (write to Rep. Jack Brooks!)
Aug 11, 94  Sen. Leahy & Rep. Edwards hold a joint hearing on the bills in
            Wash. DC at 1pm in Rayburn 2237.
Aug 10, 94  HR 4922 referred to Subcomm. on Civil and Constitutional Rights
Aug 10, 94  SB 2375 referred to Subcomm. on Technology and the Law
Aug  9, 94  Rep. Hyde officially cosponsors HR 4922
Aug  9, 94  HR 4922 referred to House Judiciary Committee
Aug  9, 94  SB 2375 referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Aug  9, 94  Identical House and Senate bills are announced by their respective
            sponsors, Rep. Don Edwards (D-CA) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
            EFF states the legislation is "not necessary" and predicts it
            will pass regardless.


For more information about the Digital Telephony bills, check the
Voters Telecomm Watch gopher site (gopher.panix.com) or contact Steven
Cherry, VTW Press Contact at (718) 596-2851 or stc () vtw org.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL POSITIONS OF LEGISLATORS


Because the Senate version passed with "unanimous consent", all of the
sitting Senators supported it.  This means that if someone is a Senator,
they supported it.  No fancy ASCII tables required.


Three representatives we know of opposed the bill in the House:


Dist ST Name, Address, and Party       Phone            Fax
==== == ========================       ==============   ==============
   4 CA Doolittle, John T. (R)         1-202-225-2511   1-202-225-5444
   1 OR Furse, Elizabeth (D)           1-202-225-0855   na
  12 NC Watt, Melvin* (D)              1-202-225-1510   1-202-225-1512


Please call them and thank them for their privacy stances.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE BILLS


The FBI's Wiretap bills (also known as the DT - Digital Telephony bills)
mandate that *all* communications carriers must provide wiretap-ready
equipment so that the FBI can more easily implement their court-ordered
wiretaps.  The costs of re-engineering all communications equipment will
be borne by the government, industry and consumers.  It does not cover
information service providers.


The bill is vague and the standards defining "wiretap ready" do not
exist.  Furthermore, the FBI has yet to make a case which demonstrates
that they have been unable to implement a single wiretap.  Although
we as a society have accepted law enforcement's need to perform
wiretaps, it is not reasonable to mandate this functionality as a part
of the design.  In itself, that would be an important debate.  However
without any proof that this is indeed a realistic and present problem,
it is unacceptable and premature to pass this legislation today.


The Voters Telecomm Watch (VTW) does not believe the FBI has made a
compelling case to justify that all Americans give up their privacy.
Furthermore, the VTW does not believe the case has been made to justify
spending 500 million Federal dollars over the next several years to
re-engineer equipment to compromise privacy, interfere with
telecommunications privacy, and fulfill an unproven government need.


There are some privacy protections built into the bill.  Their benefit
does not outweigh the damage that building wiretaps into all communication
does, however.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------