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
>