NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/alt/irc/3030

Text File | 1992-09-03 | 6.8 KB | 135 lines

Newsgroups: alt.irc
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!mineng.dmpe.CSIRO.AU!dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU!metro!usage!news
From: [e-mail] (Troy Rollo)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy,alt.irc
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: strummer.cbme.unsw.edu.au
Organization: University of New South Wales
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:40:09 GMT
Lines: 121

The following was posted to a lot of newsgroups, but missed alt.irc. It
concerns IRC too.

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Jyrki Kuoppala):
> This is the Big Brother bill that's been circulating previously.  See
> the original article in comp.org.eff.talk for the bill itself.
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, rita@eff (Rita Marie Rouvalis) writes:
>>The following is the latest version of the FBI Digital Telephony
>>Proposal, introduced in May 1992. This version removes the previous
>>language that authorized the FCC to set standards and now places it
>>solely in the hands of the Attorney General. Fines are $10,000/day for
>>non compliance with services within the public switched network having
>>18 months to comply and services outisde having three years.  The
>>proposal now manadates that the capability for remote government
>>wiretapping must be included into the system.
>>
>>This proposal clearly enhances the ability of the FBI to monitor
>>communications.  It takes the unprecendented step of placing control
>>over certification of telecommunications equipment in the hands of the
>>Attorney General and requires that the equipment be constucted to allow
>>government have the ability to monitor communications from a
>>"government monitoring facility remote from the target facility."  All
>>telecommunications users should be concerned by the privacy and
>>security implications of creating systems that have holes for the
>>government or any other knowledgable user to plug into.
>>
>>
>>102nd Congress
>>    2nd Session
>>
>>                              S. _____
>>                           [H.R. _____]
>>
>>                         IN THE SENATE
>>             [IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES]
>
> [ Most of bill deleted ]
>
> Note that the fine is "a civil penalty", which if I understand
> correctly is a tool to violate the U.S. Constitution clause about "due
> process" - ie. because it's not a criminal law, the usual "burden of
> proof" doesn't apply and the courts won't say it's a violation of due
> process (the same method as in the legalized robbery known as civil
> forfeiture laws and the proposed forced eviction laws).  You'll have
> to double-check this, though.
>
> Here's the excerpt which all Usenet sites, FIDOnet sites, BBS system
> keepers etc. among other electronic communications service providers
> in USA would have to comply with or pay $10,000 / day and be put under
> a restraining order (unless excepted by The Attorney General, after
> consultation with the Department of Commerce, the Small Business
> Administration and Federal Communications Commission).
>
>
>       (a)  Providers of electronic communication services and private
> branch exchange operators shall provide within the United States
> capability and capacity for the government to intercept wire and
> electronic communications when authorized by law:
>      (1)  concurrent with the transmission of the communication to the
> recipient of the communication;
>      (2)  in the signal form representing the content of the
> communication between the subject of the intercept and any individual
> with whom the subject is communicating, exclusive of any other signal
> representing the content of the communication between any other
> subscribers or users of the electronic communication services provider
> or private branch exchange operator, and including information on the
> individual calls (including origin, destination and other call set-up
> information), and services, systems, and features used by the subject
> of the interception;
>      (3)  notwithstanding the mobility of the subject of the intercept
> or the use by the subject of the intercept of any features of the
> telecommunication system, including, but not limited to, speed- dialing
> or call forwarding features;
>      (4)  at a government monitoring facility remote from the target
> facility and remote from the system of the electronic communication
> services provider or private branch exchange operator;
>      (5)  without detection by the subject of the intercept or any
> subscriber;  and
>      (6)  without degradation of any subscriber's telecommunications
> service.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
>      (e)  The Attorney General shall have exclusive authority to
> enforce the provisions of subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this section.
> The Attorney General may apply to the appropriate United States
> District Court for an order restraining or enjoining any violation of
> subsection (a), (b) or (c) of this section.  The District Court shall
> have jurisdiction to restrain and enjoin violations of subsections (a)
> of this section.
>      (f)  Any person who willfully violates any provision of subsection
> (a) of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of $10,000 per
> day for each day in violation.  The Attorney General may file a civil
> action in the appropriate United States District Court to collect, and
> the United States District Courts shall have jurisdiction to impose,
> such fines.
>      (g)  Definitions--As used in subsections (a) through (f) of this
> section--
>      (1)  'provider of electronic communication service' or 'private
> branch exchange operator' means any service or operator which provides
> to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic
> communication, as those terms are defined in subsections 2510(1) and
> 2510(12) of Title 18, United States code, respectively, but does not
> include the government of the United States or any agency thereof;
>      (2)  'communication' means any wire or electronic communication,
> as defined in subsections 2510(1) and 2510(12), of Title 18, United
> States Code;
>      (3)  'intercept' shall have the same meaning as set forth in
> section 2510(4) of Title 18, United States Code;  and
>      (4)  'government' means the Government of the United States and
> any agency or instrumentality thereof, any state or political
> subdivision thereof, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth,
> territory or possession of the United States.
>
>
> //Jyrki
--
__________________________________________________________________________
[e-mail]    Overworked, overcommited and always multitasking.