Date: Tue, 24 Aug 92 18:20:41 CDT
From: eff@eff.org
Subject: File 2--Mike Godwin's Response to W. Sessions on Telephony Bill

((Reprinted from: Effector 3.03, Aug 24, 1992))

                THE EFF AND THE FBI: An exchange of views

This is an exchange of letters in the Wall Street Journal between the
Director of the FBI, William Sessions and EFF's Staff Counsel, Mike
Godwin.
++++++++++++++++

                                                     August 4, 1992

FBI Must Keep Up With Wonks & Hackers

Re your July 9 article about a very successful "computer hackers"
investigation conducted by the FBI and the Secret Service ("Wiretap
Inquiry Spurs Computer Hacker Charges"):  The article mentions that
court-ordered electronic surveillance was a critical part of the
investigation and that the FBI is seeking laws to make it easier to
tap computer systems.  Mike Godwin, general counsel for the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, said that "the success in this case 'undercuts'
the argument that new laws are needed."  I believe the opposite to be
the case.  This investigation clearly demonstrates why legislation is
absolutely necessary.

What Mr. Godwin is referring to is a legislative proposal on behalf of
law enforcement to ensure that as telecommunications technology
advances, the ability of law enforcement to conduct court-ordered
electronic surveillance is not lost.  Without the legislation, it is
almost certain that will occur.  The proposal is not directed at
computer systems, but pertains to telephone service providers and
equipment manufacturers.

In 1968, Congress carefully considered and passed legislation setting
forth the exacting procedure by which court authorization to conduct
electronic surveillance can be obtained.  Since that time it has
become an invaluable investigative tool in combating serious and often
life-threatening crimes such as terrorism, kidnapping, drugs and
organized crime.  The 1968 law contemplates cooperation by the
telecommunications service providers in implementing these court
orders.  The proposed legislation only clarifies that responsibility
by making it clearly applicable regardless of the technology deployed.

Absent legislation, the ability to conduct successful investigations
such as the one mentioned in your article will certainly be
jeopardized.  The deployment of digital telecommunications equipment
that is not designed to meet the need for law enforcement to
investigate crime and enforce the laws will have that effect.  No new
authority is needed or requested.  All the legislation would do if
enacted is ensure that the status quo is maintained and the ability
granted by Congress in 1968 preserved.

William S. Sessions Director, FBI, Department of Justice Wall Street
Journal, August 4, 1992

+++++++++++++++

                                                  August 14, 1992

Letters to the Editor The Wall Street Journal:  200 Liberty Street New
York, NY 10281

In his Aug. 4 letter to the editor, FBI Director William Sessions
disagrees with my quoted opinion that the FBI's success in a
computer-wiretap case "'undercuts' the argument that new laws are
needed." His disagreement doesn't disturb me too much; it's the kind
of thing over which reasonable people can disagree.


What does disturb me, however, is Sessions's claim about the FBI's
initiative to require the phone companies (and other
communications-service providers, like CompuServe) to build
wiretapping capabilities into their systems. Says Sessions, apparently
without irony:  "No new authority is needed or requested. All the
legislation would if enacted is ensure that the status quo is
maintained and the ability [of law enforcement to implement wiretaps]
is preserved." Earlier, Sessions says the proposed legislation "only
clarifies [the phone companies'] responsibility" to cooperate with
properly authorized law enforcement under the 1968 Wiretap Act.


What Sessions does not mention, however, is that his legislation
would, among other things, allow the government to impose upon those
phone companies and communications-service providers who do not build
wiretapping into their systems "a civil penalty of $10,000 per day for
each day in violation." By any standards other than those of Sessions
and the FBI, this constitutes "new authority." If this proposal "only
clarifies" providers' obligations under the 1968 Act, one shudders to
imagine what Sessions would call an "expansion" of law-enforcement
authority.

MIKE GODWIN Staff Counsel Electronic Frontier Foundation Cambridge,
Massachusetts

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253