[FYI] (Fwd) IP: FBI insists it can tap e-mail without a warrant

["Axel H Horns" <horns@t-online.de>]

------- Forwarded message follows -------
To:             	cryptography@c2.net
Subject:        	IP: FBI insists it can tap e-mail without a warrant
From:           	"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date sent:      	18 May 2000 16:01:14 -0400


>From Interesting People...

------- Start of forwarded message -------
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 18:15:49 -0700
From: Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
Subject: IP: FBI insists it can tap e-mail without a warrant


>
>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=z
>dhpnews01
>
>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
>



------- End of forwarded message -------
------- End of forwarded message -------