story on digital telephony from today's Washington Post (fwd)

[Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>]

The Washington Post
February 24, 1994
Business Section, first page

FBI, Justice Seek High-Tech Surveillance Guarantees
by John Mintz and John Schwartz
Washington Post Staff Writers

The FBI and the Justice Department are fearful that increasing
sophistication in communications technology will keep investigators from
tapping phones and computers and are seeking legislative guarantees that
wiretaps will continue to be technically possible.

The Bush administration proposed a similar bill in 1992, but withdrew it
after industry officials and civil libertarians bitterly denounced it. 
Although the Clinton administration's new version differs in some ways from
the old one, opponents said it too is flawed.

Administration officials will outline their proposal today at the White
House for communications executives.

"We see this bill as a potential blueprint for an electronic surveillance
society," said Jerry Berman, executive director of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation and spokesman for a coalition of civil-liberties groups and
high-technology firms.

FBI Director Louis J. Freeh said in a speech last week that the new
technologies and a "lack of support" by some communications executives mean
"the country will be unable to protect itself against terrorism, violent
crime, foreign threats, drug trafficking, espionage" and other crimes.

Berman said that designing peepholes into the nation's rapidly expanding
information infrastructure will do far more than guarantee law enforcement
agencies the ability to tap phones.

As more and more activities of everyday life go "on-line" -- from home
banking to video-on-demand selections -- the initiative would provide
snoopers with a profile of how citizens live, work and play, he said.

The new bill would give the attorney general broad power to demand that
communications gear be designed to guarantee that investigators would have
access to it, and sets stiff penalties for firms that don't comply.

The bill would allow the attorney general to seek fines of $10,000 a day
for firms that don't provide access or, in some cases, to shut them down. 
A copy of the bill and the administration's analysis have been obtained by
The Washington Post.

Industry executives voiced concern that redesigning U.S. communications
networks to accommodate the proposed legislation would cost more than the
FBI's $300 million estimate.  Under the FBI plan, taxpayers, not telephone
ratepayers, would foot the bill.

The FBI and the Justice Department say the initiative would not expand
their power, but would ensure access to the type of communications they
have been entitled to tap for years.

Administration officials say such authority was granted in 1970 amendments
to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.  But the
communications industry at that time consisted mostly of AT&T.  Not only
has technology become more complex, but a host of new players have entered
the field, including the "Baby Bell" regional phone companies, cable firms,
computer companies and more.

The FBI is concerned about a host of new phone services, including "call
forwarding," under which calls are bounced from phone to phone and, in
turn, defeat investigators searching for a call's final destination.

Moreover, the FBI says many cellular phone systems provide only limited
"ports," or entryways, for tapping.  In the mid-1980s, New York City's
cellular system provided only five "ports" for tapping, meaning
investigators often waited in line.

The new bill dropped a requirement in the 1992 proposal that would have
insisted that corporate switchboards accommodate wiretaps.

The new bill applies mainly to "common carriers."  That term usually refers
to phone firms or transportation companies, but in this bill could be
interpreted to include cable firms and others.  Computer and
telecommunications equipment firms also would be required to provide access
for investigators.

The bill would require phone firms, on law enforcement's request, to
provide up-to-the-second records on every call to and from any phone.  The
new bill would allow investigators to gather the information more quickly
than ever before, and from their offices.  Under current law and under the
new bill, investigators can obtain such data relatively easily -- by
persuading a judge that it's "relevant" to an ongoing criminal probe.

Philip Servidea, government affairs director for AT&T, said the company has
long believed a new law is unnecessary.  "The legislation will have to have
come a long sight from the last version to be acceptable," he said.

"This makes the development of the communications industry a law
enforcement matter," said Janlori Goldman, a privacy expert at the American
Civil Liberties Union.  "We're very concerned."

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said that while he looks forward to working
with Freeh to update wiretap laws, giving the government "final say in how
far and how fast technology advances" could "jeopardize the legitimate
concerns of business."