[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[NOISY] Re: Clinton Administration Plans 1.5 MILLION WIRETAPS


On Fri, 3 Nov 1995 [email protected] wrote:

Ah, Clark graces us with his presence. See articles
<[email protected]> and <[email protected]>. I especially
enjoyed <[email protected]>.

>                        From THE SPOTLIGHT
>                   300 Independence Avenue, S.E.
>                       Washington, DC  20003

Here's a little more information on this fine publication, which is in the
forefront of the struggle to expose the truth about the United Nations'
responsibility for the bombing of the Oklahoma Federal Building. Note the
second Library of Congress topic classification. The Spotlight is often
cited in alt.revisionism. Larger University libraries usually carry it;
I know Stanford and Berkeley do.

TITLE:    Spotlight (Washington, D.C.)
          The Spotlight.
          The Spotlight (Washington)
IMPRINT:  Washington, Liberty Lobby.
          v. ill. 39 cm.
TOPICS:   United States--Politics and government--1969---Periodicals.
          Conservatism--United States--Periodicals.
NOTES:    Weekly (except two issues combined into one at beginning of year)
          v. 2, no. 16-     Apr. 19, 1976-
          Continues: National spotlight
          Language: English   Year: 1976-
          ISSN 0191-6270

>                       Technology & Liberty
>                         November 13, 1995
>                         By Clark Matthews
>                    [email protected]
> Janet Reno's Justice Department and the FBI have directed U.S.
> telephone companies to prepare for up to 1.5 million
> simultaneous, electronic intercepts on Americans' telephones.

This is not true. This is a trial balloon, not a directive;  it's a first,
wet dream draft at the beginning of a public comment period. It is dead 
on arrival.

It will not be implemented, not if we have any say in the matter, and we
do. Please do chime in, though, based on EPIC's responsible analysis and

> The same directive requires the nation's phone companies to
> complete the necessary modifications to their equipment to create
> this massive surveillance apparatus from America's public
> telephone networks.  Telephone companies are directed to have
> these capabilities in place by October 28, 1998, one week before
> the 1998 elections.

This is not true.

[Tin-foil-hat-tinged plagiarism of EPIC's alert deleted]

> The administration's eavesdropping diktats are buried in a set of
> technical "capacity requirements" that telephone companies are
> expected to meet in order to comply with the CALEA law.  The
> capacity requirements appear on pages 53643-53646 of the Federal
> Register for October 16, 1995.  Computer users can access this
> document electronically on the internet from the Electronic
> Privacy Information Center (http://www.epic.org) or by using wais
> (wais.access.gpo.gov).

The second and third sentences are true. If you are a US citizen (natural 
born White Sovereign State Citizen or otherwise), please follow up on 
them. Let your voice be heard.

The first sentence has at least four readily apparent logical and 
factual flaws.

> or businesses.  They can also be programmed to monitor telephone
> conversations, intercept faxes, and record communications
> sessions between computer modems, including computer passwords
> and digital transactions.

Not if they're encrypted, they can't :-)

> Here is a breakdown of the scope of the federal surveillance
> described by the capacity requirements:

[All plagiarized from the EPIC alert; a few errors, but nothing major]

> And since "major cities" are "high interest" areas, the actual
> number is more likely to approach one million or more.  Even
> these figures don't tell the whole story.  The Justice Department
> directives have a built-in vagueness that allows areas to be re-
> defined.  They can become "high-interest" hotspots at any time,
> under any circumstances.  A currency crisis, for instance.  Or a
> hotly contested election.  Or perhaps a mysterious bombing
> provocation in the midwest.

This is completely untrue. Cite please?

> Furthermore, telephone companies do not have the luxury of
> meeting the minimum surveillance requirements.  It's a
> technological reality that they must modify their equipment to
> meet the maximum requirements.  That's because the FBI can re-
> define their surveillance responsibilities at any time, by
> branding their customers as "interesting".  


Yes, please do. The facts are rather disturbing. Clark's transcription 
leaves a little to be desired, so I quote EPIC:


(a) Express support for Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), a former federal prosecutor 
and leading Congressional
opponent of the FBI's request for wiretap funding: 

     Rep. Bob Barr
     U.S. House of Representatives
     1607 Longworth Building
     Washington, DC 20515
     (202) 225-2931

(b) Submit comments to the FBI. Object to the "percentage approach" to
wiretap capacity. Urge the FBI to follow the current measurement of
wiretapping, as reported annually by the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts, which considers the actual number of wiretaps authorized. If you
are a telephone customer, ask the FBI to address the privacy risks of
unauthorized, illegal, or excessive wire surveillance. Comments should be
submitted in triplicate to the Telecommunications Industry Liaison Unit
(TILU), Federal Bureau of Investigation, P.O. Box 220450, Chantilly, VA
22022-0450. Send copies of your comments to EPIC ([email protected]) and
Congressman Barr. 

                 ** Comments must be received by November 15, 1995. **

(c) If you represent or work for a telecommunications company, equipment
manufacturer, or service provider, assess carefully the cost and liability
that this proposed federal regulation may impose on your company and the
risk that it may expose your customers to illegal wiretapping. If you are
interested in challenging the final FBI rule, contact EPIC. 

[BUAF of a birdie deleted]

- -rich

Version: 2.6.2