From: Dave Banisar <banisar@epic.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 94 10:21:20 PDT
To: Cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: EPIC Seeks Release of FBI Wiretap Data
Message-ID: <9308091315.AA11509@Hacker2.cpsr.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




             Electronic Privacy Information Center

                          PRESS RELEASE
  _____________________________________________________________

For Release:
August 9, 1994
2:00 pm

            Group Seeks Release of FBI Wiretap Data, 
      Calls Proposed Surveillance Legislation Unnecessary

     Washington, DC:  A leading privacy rights group today sued 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation to force the release of 
documents the FBI claims support its campaign for new wiretap 
legislation.  The documents were cited by FBI Director Louis Freeh 
during testimony before Congress and in a speech to an influential 
legal organization but have never been released to the public.

     The lawsuit was filed as proposed legislation which would 
mandate technological changes long sought by the FBI was scheduled 
to be introduced in Congress.  

     The case was brought in federal district court by the 
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a public interest 
research organization that has closely monitored the Bureau's 
efforts to mandate the design of the nation's telecommunications 
infrastructure to facilitate wiretapping.  An earlier EPIC lawsuit 
revealed that FBI field offices had reported no difficulties 
conducting wiretaps as a result of new digital communications 
technology, in apparent contradiction of frequent Bureau claims.

     At issue are two internal FBI surveys that the FBI Director 
has cited as evidence that new telephone systems interfere with 
law enforcement investigations.  During Congressional testimony on 
March 18, Director Freeh described "a 1993 informal survey which 
the FBI did with respect to state and local law enforcement 
authorities."   According to Freeh, the survey describes the 
problems such agencies had encountered in executing court orders 
for electronic surveillance.  On May 19 the FBI Director delivered 
a speech before the American Law Institute in Washington, DC.  In 
his prepared remarks, Freeh stated that "[w]ithin the last month, 
the FBI conducted an informal survey of federal and local law 
enforcement regarding recent technological problems which revealed 
over 180 instances where law enforcement was precluded from 
implementing or fully implementing court [wiretap] orders."

     According to David L. Sobel, EPIC's Legal Counsel, the FBI 
has not yet demonstrated a need for the sweeping new legislation 
that it seeks.  "The Bureau has never presented a convincing case 
that its wiretapping capabilities are threatened.  Yet it seeks to 
redesign the information infrastructure at an astronomical cost to 
the taxpayers."  The nation's telephone companies have 
consistently stated that there have been no cases in which the 
needs of law enforcement have not been met.

     EPIC is a project of the Fund for Constitutional Government 
and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.


================================================================


           FBI Director Freeh's Recent Conflicting 
   Statements on the Need for Digital Telephony Legislation
_______________________________________________________________


Speech before the Executives' Club of Chicago, February 17:

   Development of technology is moving so rapidly that several
   hundred court-authorized surveillances already have been
   prevented by new technological impediments with advanced
   communications equipment.

               *               *               *

Testimony before Congress on March 18:

   SEN. LEAHY: Have you had any -- for example, digital telephony,
   have you had any instances where you've had a court order for a
   wiretap  that couldn't be executed because of digital
   telephony?

   MR. FREEH: We've had problems just short of that.  And I was
   going to continue with my statement, but I won't now because
   I'd actually rather answer questions than read. We have
   instances of 91 cases -- this was based on a 1993 informal
   survey which the FBI did with respect to state and local law
   enforcement authorities.  I can break that down for you.

               *               *               *

Newsday interview on May 16:

   We've determined about 81 different instances around the
   country where we were not able to execute a court-authorized
   electronic surveillance order because of lack of access to that
   particular system - a digital switch, a digital loop or some
   blocking technology which we didn't have to deal with four or
   five years ago.

               *               *               *

Speech before the American Law Institute on May 19:

   Within the last month, the FBI conducted an informal survey of
   federal and local law enforcement regarding recent techno-
   logical problems which revealed over 180 instances where law
   enforcement was precluded from implementing or fully
   implementing court orders [for electronic surveillance].


   ============================================================