Interesting People mailing list archives

Roving Wiretaps and the Anti-Terrorism Bill


From: Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 09:53:24 +0900

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 95 11:21:27 EDT
From: denning () cs cosc georgetown edu (Dorothy Denning)
To: farber () central cis upenn edu


              Roving Wiretaps and the Anti-Terrorism Bill




I have seen several articles stating that the "roving wiretap"
amendment in the Anti-Terrorism bill would allow the government to
wiretap all phones in a wide area.  This is false.


Roving wiretaps (also called "multipoint wiretaps") allow a law
enforcement agency to intercept the communications of a subject with a
single court order even when the subject's telephone is subject to
change (e.g., because the subject is moving around in order to evade
interception).  The amendment (Sec. 909 in Senate bill S.7876) removes a
requirement that the application for the court order show that the
subject's intent is to thwart surveillance, allowing the application to
show instead that the subject's actions would have the effect of
thwarting surveillance.  The full text of the amendment follows.  Even
when a roving wiretap is authorized, prior to intercepting
communications, the investigative officer must use some other method of
investigation in order to determine the exact location and/or telephone
number of the facility being used.  The officer may not intercept
communications randomly in order to track a person.  In 1992, there
were 4 roving wiretap orders; in 1993, 7.


Sec. 909. REVISION TO EXISTING AUTHORITY FOR MULTIPOINT WIRETAPS.
  (a) Section 2518(11)(b)(ii) of title 18 is amended: by deleting "of a
purpose, on the part of that person, to thwart interception by
changing facilities." and inserting "that the person had the intent to
thwart interception or that the person's actions and conduct would have
the effect of thwarting interception from a specialized facility.".
  (b) Section 2518(11)(b)(iii) is amended to read: "(iii) the judge
finds that such showing has been adequately made.".  [The current
wording is: "(iii) the judge finds that such purpose has been
adequately shown." DED]


For more information about wiretaps, see "Wiretap Laws and Procedures,"
which is available through The Cryptography Project web page:


   http://www.cosc.georgetown.edu/~denning/crypto/


Dorothy E. Denning


Current thread: