From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:33:12 -0800 (PST)
To: rwright@adnetsol.com
Subject: Re: FBI Gets 500 Mil to Tap Your Communications
Message-ID: <01IEII3EZEGW9AMSD7@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"rwright@adnetsol.com"  "Ross Wright" 22-JAN-1997 02:52:34.76

>at [8]. Unlike the earlier draft, this essay lays out its assumptions
>and straightforwardly projects needed capacity growth. The result is
>a capacity figure of fewer than 60,000 intercepts, less that 4% of
>the original request. This level of capability would allow the FBI
>simultaneously to monitor more than 500 phone lines in an area with
>the population of Manhatta still an enormous increase on historical 
>numbers of intercepts.

[...]

>[8]  <http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_3.01.html>

	Something that the CDT didn't point out was that basing wiretap
"requirements" on past growth makes two assumptions, both of them invalid:

A. Past wiretaps (& other probes, such as pen registers & tap-and-trace) were
all entirely justified; the growth in their use does not reflect either
use of them in situations they are not required for or use of them in
situations in which government has essentially failed and more resources
poured into the alleged "problems" (e.g., drug trafficing, money laundering,
and pornography) will do less than no good whatsoever.

B. The number of lines will go up at the same rate as the estimated growth
in wiretaps. In regards to this latter one, if they go up at a greater rate,
then the FBI will request expanded capacity; if they go up at a lower rate,
they will assuredly not request a decrease, and will thus ultimately have
the capablility to wiretap _all_ lines.

>Fuck the FBI.

	With a backhoe.
	-Allen