From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 12:03:34 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: Kallstrom Calls All Calls Tappable
In-Reply-To: <199511031441.JAA18237@pipe2.nyc.pipeline.com>
Message-ID: <199511031743.MAA12656@opine.cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


James Kallstrom (FBI-NY) in The Washington Post:
>    "We've never done that many" taps at one time, he said. But
>    in a "worst-case scenario," such as a major act of
>    terrorism, the agency might need such ability, he said. "I
>    think it's a reasonable, minimal, conservative number."

In other words, they'll "round up the usual suspects" ?  Mr. Sose
to a White Courtesy Telephone, please.

The argument above is very different (and IMHO much less defensible for the
FBI) than the claim that the LEAs will in general have more investigations in
progress that require wiretapping. A gradual increase in wiretap orders in
a given area could plausibly happen as more and more interesting traffic
goes over the wire. But a sudden jump in activity after a crime has been
committed looks like a big fishing expedition. In particular, I fear that
judges will be more disposed to sign stacks of wiretap orders 
indiscriminately in the aftermath of a major act of violence.

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>