FC: USA Today on wiretap perils and Justice Dept response

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

[Those links no longer work]

> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 18:07:28 -0400
> To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
> From: rotenberg () epic org
> Subject: USA Today on Wiretaps & DOJ Response
>
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/nceditf.htm
>
> 09/02/99- Updated 08:04 AM ET
>
> Increased digital monitoring opens door to wide abuse
>
> When the Federal Communications Commission expanded the ability
> of police to monitor telephone communications last week, civil
> libertarians and privacy advocates howled.
>
> Law enforcement is to get the capacity, with court orders, to
> monitor conference calls, listen to people who are put on hold
> and track people to their cell tower locations, among other
> things.
>
> Police agencies say they need such abilities to keep tabs on
> criminals using modern communications. But the latest news is
> only the latest piece of a deeper and troubling trend.

[...]

> In none of this is much thought given to people's legitimate
> right and need for privacy.
>
> Indeed, the efforts are deterring telephone companies,
> communications equipment makers and software companies from
> providing the best security possible.
>
> The result: Hackers now using ordinary computers can break
> supposedly impregnable codes for cell phones because of
> weaknesses put there under law enforcement pressure.

[...]

> If a crisis is brewing, it isn't that criminals and terrorists
> will escape. It is that the government's ageless eagerness to
> pry will supersede the public's right to be free of that prying.


> http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/ncoppf.htm
>
> Criminals have gone high-tech
>
> By James K. Robinson
>
> The Clinton administration fully supports the use of encryption
> and other new technologies to provide privacy and security to
> law-abiding citizens in the digital age. Just as our citizens
> already use the Internet, cellular phone systems and other
> communications technologies to improve their lives, soon the
> vast majority of people will also use encryption on a daily
> basis. However, criminals are increasingly using encryption and
> other technologies to shield their illegal activities from their
> victims and the police. The fundamental and undeniable concern
> of law enforcement is that we maintain the ability -- consistent
> with the Constitution and important privacy protections -- to
> respond to those criminals who encrypt evidence of criminal
> activity to elude law enforcement. In short, we support privacy,
> security and a safe electronic environment.
>
> During the normal course of investigations, law enforcement
> agencies must obtain the evidence needed to prosecute criminals.
> At the same time, we have laws that govern how these agencies
> can obtain that evidence -- strict laws that balance the
> agencies' need to protect public safety with the privacy rights
> of individuals -- and we follow those laws. For example, if we
> have probable cause to believe that someone is creating and
> distributing child pornography, we can search the premises where
> the pornography is stored for evidence, with a search warrant
> issued by a court.
>
> Technology has changed law enforcement agencies' ability to do
> their jobs. A child pornographer can use modern technologies to
> communicate with other criminals and to store pictures and other
> information on a computer. More important, these criminals can
> use encryption to scramble their communications and pictures so
> that law enforcement agencies, even with a court-authorized
> warrant, cannot decode the information or read the documents.
> Thus, the legally obtained evidence is useless. If, as a result,
> a law enforcement agency cannot prove its case, then the child
> pornographers will go free. And, of course, the same situation
> applies with respect to those drug cartels and terrorists who
> are also using encryption.
>
> We, emphatically, do not want to outlaw encryption or to access
> the private, personal information of the law-abiding public. The
> real question is: What do we do when criminals use good
> technology for bad purposes?
>
> Law enforcement agencies must be authorized to adapt to our
> technological world. We can only protect the public if we can
> appropriately investigate and prosecute criminals. If a judge
> has determined that law enforcement is authorized to obtain
> evidence from or about a suspected criminal, then that suspect
> should not be permitted to hide the evidence, remain free and
> continue to prey on the public. Law enforcement must have the
> ability to act, in accordance with the Constitution and strict,
> narrowly written laws that are designed to balance both public
> safety and individual privacy, to locate and identify criminals
> and to gather evidence. If their investigative tools are unable
> to keep up with current technology, public safety will be at
> great risk as we enter the next millennium. We look forward to
> working with Congress and interested groups to develop an
> effective strategy to achieve these objectives.
>
> James K. Robinson is assistant attorney general, Criminal
> Division, Department of Justice.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe: send a message to majordomo () vorlon mit edu with this text:
subscribe politech
More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------