From: Brad Dolan <bdolan@use.usit.net>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 13:52:53 +0800
To: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Telephone switch capacity -Reply
In-Reply-To: <v02120d02acc1d4859dfc@[192.0.2.1]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.951105003800.21655A-100000@use.usit.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Sat, 4 Nov 1995, Lucky Green wrote:

> At 18:43 11/3/95, Rich Graves wrote:
> >[about the FBI supposedly wanting the ability to tap 1% of all phones in
> >the US simultaneously]
> 
> [...]
> >Of course the FBI doesn't have the staff to listen to all these lines, and
> >they need an individual court order to authorize each individual
> >interception, so this numbers game is a bit of a joke.
> 
> One more time. Despite what you read in the papers, despite what most
> people - even in the legal profession - believe, telephone wiretaps do
> _not_ require a court order. They haven't required a court order in over a
> year. The Digital Telephony Bill, which passed Congress by an overwhelming
> margin, _explicitly_ allows for wiretap authorizations other than a court
> order. The law does not impose any rules for these "other forms of
> authorization".
> 
> "The captain signed it off" may suffice.


And Clinton issued an executive order allowing Janet Reno (or her 
designees, I believe) to approve wiretaps.

bd


> 
> 
> -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com>
>    PGP encrypted mail preferred.
> 
> 
>