From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 00:52:27 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: LEO Sly Bug Buy, Bye Spy Shop
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970727163329.008845bc@pop.pipeline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



As follow-up to an earlier thread, and Tim's post on LEOs, them
and us, this excerpt from House Report 105-162:

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Section 2512 of title 18, United States Code, prohibits the
advertisement of any electronic, mechanical or other device,
``primarily useful for the purpose of surreptitious
interception of wire, oral or electronic communications.'' This
section was drafted with the intention of ``significantly
curtailing the supply of devices * * * whose principal use is
likely to be for wiretapping or eavesdropping.'' \1\ The
Committee report listed several examples of devices which would
fall under this prohibition, including microphones designed as
wristwatches, cuff links, tie clips, fountain pens or cigarette
packs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 94-95 (1968).
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, legitimate law enforcement users were swept
along with this prohibition on advertisements. Because of the
restriction under Sec. 2512, companies which manufacture
devices designed for wiretapping are not permitted to advertise
the sale of their products to police departments. These
companies are aware of cases in which a defendant was charged
and convicted for violation of Sec. 2512, and although they
would like to make the law enforcement community aware of their
products, they do not wish to risk criminal sanctions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See, e.g., United States v. Ron Wynn, 633 F. Supp. 595 (1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Law enforcement officers, particularly undercover officers,
often use devices which would fall under the definition of a
device ``primarily designed for surreptitious interception.''
It is a strange anomaly in the law that police departments have
the authority to use electronic intercepts, but they may not
receive mailings about improvements to such equipment. This
exception is particularly significant since electronic
interception equipment is frequently updated and improved.
    As an example, police officers and informants often use
body microphones to record criminal activity. Covert devices
are critical for the collection of evidence, yet many
experienced criminals are aware of traditional attempts to
disguise body transmitters. These transmitters have been
miniaturized, and can now be disguised in some common facade
unfamiliar to criminals. By not allowing companies which
manufacture intercept equipment to advertise to police
departments, police officers' lives are unnecessarily put at
risk.
    H.R. 1840 will provide relief to companies which
manufacture electronic interception equipment, by allowing them
to advertise the availability of their products to agencies of
the United States, States, or political subdivisions, so long
as the recipient of the mailing is duly authorized to use such
devices. The Committee appreciates the extensive input of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation in drafting this legislation,
to ensure that the bill was crafted as narrowly as possible
while still achieving the intended effect.

[End report excerpt]

-----

For full report and bill:

   http://site108240.primehost.com/hr1840.txt  (14K)