home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!telecom-request
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 07:59:54 -0800 (PST)
- From: booloo@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov (Mark Boolootian)
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
- Subject: Released GSA Docs Slam FBI Wiretap Proposal
- Message-ID: <telecom13.36.1@eecs.nwu.edu>
- Organization: TELECOM Digest
- Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
- Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
- X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
- X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
- X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 36, Message 1 of 8
- Lines: 210
-
- Moderator's Note: Mark passed along this correspondence from Dave
- Banisar discussing a recent newspaper report. PAT]
-
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 23:22:47 -0500
- From: Dave Banisar <banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
- Subject: Released GSA Docs Slam FBI Wiretap Proposal
-
- "GSA Memos Reveal that FBI Wiretap Plan was Opposed by Government's
- Top Telecomm Purchaser"
-
- The {New York Times} reported today on a document obtained by CPSR
- through the Freedom of Information Act. ("FBI's Proposal on Wiretaps
- Draws Criticism from G.S.A.," {New York Times}, January 15, 1993, p.
- A12)
-
- The document, an internal memo prepared by the General Services
- Administration, describes many problems with the FBI's wiretap plan
- and also shows that the GSA strongly opposed the sweeping proposal.
- The GSA is the largest purchaser of telecommunications equipment in
- the federal government.
-
- The FBI wiretap proposal, first announced in March of 1992, would have
- required telephone manufacturers to design all communications
- equipment to facilitate wire surveillance. The proposal was defeated
- last year. The FBI has said that it plans to reintroduce a similar
- proposal this year.
-
- The documents were released to Computer Professionals for Social
- Responsibility, a public interest organization, after CPSR submitted
- Freedom of Information Act requests about the FBI's wiretap plan to
- several federal agencies last year.
-
- The documents obtained by CPSR reveal that the GSA, which is
- responsible for equipment procurement for the Federal government,
- strongly opposed two different versions of the wiretap plan developed
- by the FBI. According to the GSA, the FBI proposal would complicate
- interoperability, increase cost, and diminish privacy and network
- security. The GSA also stated that the proposal could "adversely
- _affect national security._"
-
- In the second memo, the GSA concluded that it would be a mistake to
- give the Attorney General sole authority to waive provisions of the
- bill.
-
- The GSA's objections to the proposal were overruled by the Office of
- Management and Budget, a branch of the White House which oversees
- administrative agencies for the President. However, none of GSA's
- objections were disclosed to the public or made available to policy
- makers in Washington.
-
- Secrecy surrounds this proposal. Critical sections of a report on the
- FBI wiretap plan prepared by the General Accounting Office were
- earlier withhold after the FBI designated these sections "National
- Security Information." These sections included analysis by GAO on
- alternatives to the FBI's wiretap plan. CPSR is also pursuing a FOIA
- lawsuit to obtain the FBI's internal documents concerning the wiretap
- proposal.
-
- The GSA memos, the GAO report and others that CPSR is now seeking
- indicate that there are many important documents within the government
- which have still not been disclosed to the public.
-
- Marc Rotenberg, CPSR Washington office rotenberg@washofc.cpsr.org
-
- Note: Underscores indicate underlining in the original text. Dashes
- that go across pages indicate page breaks.
-
- [Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility is a nonprofit, public
- interest membership organization. For membership information about CPSR,
- contact cpsr@csli.stanford.edu or call 415/322-3778. For information on
- CPSR's FOIA work, contact David Sobel at 202/544-9240
- (sobel@washofc.cpsr.org).]
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
- (#4A)
-
- Control No. X92050405
- Due Date: 5/5/92
-
- Brenda Robinson (S)
-
- After KMR consultations, we still _"cannot support"_ Draft Bill. No.
- 118 as substantially revised by Justice after its purported full
- consideration of other agencies' "substantive concerns."
-
- Aside from the third paragraph of our 3/13/92 attachment response for
- the original draft bill, which was adopted as GSA's position (copy
- attached), Justice has failed to fully address other major GSA
- concerns (i.e., technological changes and associated costs).
-
- Further, by merely eliminating the FCC and any discussion of cost
- issues in the revision, we can not agree as contended by Justice that
- it now " ... takes care of kinds of problems raised by FCC and others
- ...."
-
- Finally, the revision gives Justice sole unilateral exclusive
- authority to enforce and except or waive the provisions of any
- resultant Iaw in Federal District Courts. Our other concerns are also
- shown in the current attachment for the revised draft bill.
-
- Once again OMB has not allowed sufficient time for a more through
- review, a comprehensive internal staffing, or a formal response.
-
- /Signature/
-
- Wm. R. Loy KMR 5/5/92
-
- Info: K(Peay),KD,KA,KB,KE,KG,KV,KM,KMP,KMR,R/F,LP-Rm.4002
-
- (O/F) - 9C1h (2) (a) - File (#4A)
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
- ATTACHMENT
- REVISED JUSTICE DRAFT BILL
- DIGITAL TELEPHONY
-
- The proposed legislation could have a widespread impact on the
- government's ability to acquire _new_ telecommunications equipment and
- provide electronic communications services.
-
- _Existing_ Federal government telecommunications resources will be
- affected by the proposed new technology techniques and equipment. An
- incompatibility and interoperability of existing Federal government
- telecommunications system, and resources would result due to the new
- technological changes proposed.
-
- The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been removed from the
- legislation, but the Justice implementation may require modifications
- to the "Communications Act of 1934," and other FCC policies and
- regulations to remove inconsistencies. This could also cause an
- unknown effect on the wire and electronic communications systems
- operations, services, equipment, and regulations within the Federal
- government. Further, to change a major portion of the United States
- telecommunications infrastructure (the public switched network within
- eighteen months and others within three years) seems very optimistic,
- no matter how trivial or minimal the proposed modifications are to
- implement.
-
- In the proposed legislation the Attorney General has sole _unilateral
- exclusive_ authority to enforce, grant exceptions or waive the
- provisions of any resultant law and enforce it in Federal District
- Courts. The Attorney General would, as appropriate, only "consult"
- with the FCC, Department of Commerce, or Small Business
- Administration. The Attorney General has exclusive authority in
- Section 2 of the legislation; it appears the Attorney General has
- taken over several FCC functions and placed the FCC in a mere
- consulting capacity.
-
- The proposed legislation would apply to all forms of wire and
- electronic communications to include computer data bases, facsimile,
- imagery etc., as well as voice transmissions.
-
- The proposed legislation would assist eavesdropping by law
- enforcement, but it would also apply to users who acquire the
- technology capability and make it easier for criminals, terrorists,
- foreign intelligence (spies) and computer hackers to electronically
- penetrate the public network and pry into areas previously not open to
- snooping. This situation of easier access due to new technology
- changes could therefore affect _national security_.
-
- (1)
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
- The proposed legislation does not address standards and specifications
- for telecommunications equipment nor security considerations. These
- issues must be addressed as they effect both the government and
- private industry. There are also civil liberty implications and the
- public's constitutional rights to privacy which are not mentioned.
-
- It must be noted that equipment already exists that can be used to
- wiretap the digital communications lines and support court-authorized
- wiretaps, criminal investigations and probes of voice communications.
- The total number of interception applications authorized within the
- United States (Federal and State) has been averaging under nine
- hundred per year. There is concern that the proposed changes are not
- cost effective and worth the effort to revamp all the existing and new
- telecommunications systems.
-
- The proposed bill would have to have the FCC or another agency approve
- or reject new telephone equipment mainly on the basis of whether the
- FBI has the capability to wiretap it. The federal-approval process is
- normally lengthy and the United States may not be able to keep pace
- with foreign industries to develop new technology and install secure
- communications. As a matter of interest, the proposed restrictive new
- technology could impede the United States' ability to compete in
- digital telephony and participate in the international trade arena.
-
- Finally, there will be unknown associated costs to implement the
- proposed new technological procedures and equipment. These costs
- would be borne by the Federal government, consumers, and all other
- communications ratepayers to finance the effort. Both the Federal
- government and private industry communications regular phone service,
- data transmissions, satellite and microwave transmissions, and
- encrypted communications could be effected at increased costs.
-
- (2)
-
- [Documents disclosed to Computer Professionals for Social
- Responsibility (CPSR), under the Freedom of Information Act December
- 1992.]
-
-
-
- Mark Boolootian booloo@llnl.gov +1 510 423 1948
- Disclaimer: booloo speaks for booloo and no other.
-
-