Posted on 09/24/2001 6:07:10 PM PDT by sendtoscott
HOW THE FEDS MISREPRESENTED ANTI-PRIVACY PROVISIONS OF 1994 LAW Congress is now contemplating passage of the Mobilization Against Terrorism Act, which would (among other things) expand government wiretapping and eavesdropping powers. Unknown to most Americans, however, is that Congress had already given law enforcement authorities broad powers to expand electronic surveillance in the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), according to political economist Charlotte Twight in the fall 2001 issue of THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW. Among other powers, the CALEA gave the Federal Bureau of Investigation authority to track the physical location of cell phone users and to obtain the content of private communications in a variety of circumstances without a probable-cause warrant. Yet when testifying to Congress about the proposed CALEA, the FBI's then-director Louis Freeh repeatedly claimed that CALEA would confer no new authority on law enforcement officials, provide no information about the physical location of cellular phone calls, and not weaken existing privacy protections. The CALEA episode, argues Twight, demonstrates that Congress is no match for crafty machinations of bureaucrats expert in masking their true intentions by hamstringing Congress's ability to understand the meaning of new legislation -- what Twight calls an example of the manipulation of "political transaction costs," such as the cost of understanding the details of legislation. "The confluence of CALEA, federally mandated electronic databases of personal information, Carnivore, Digital Storm, Echelon, and the like have established a web of federal surveillance never before known in the United States," writes Twight. "One way or another, we will soon learn that the resistance-inhibiting power of broad-based government surveillance is potentially the most liberty-endangering form of political transaction-cost manipulation confronting Americans -- and freedom-loving people everywhere -- in the new millennium." See "Conning Congress: Privacy and the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act" by Charlotte Twight (THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW, Fall 2001), at http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-38-4.html. Also see, "Watching You: Systematic Federal Surveillance of Ordinary Americans" by Charlotte Twight (THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW, Fall 1999), at http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-38-5.html.
"On August 15, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in United States Telecom Association, et. al. v. FCC (Case No. 99-1422) ...
The Court emphasized that a pen register gives law enforcement agencies access to only the call identification information of a packet mode communications. Carriers are not required to turn over call content to law enforcement without a separate authorization. "
Someone's lying, either your source or the United States Court of Appeals.
You wouldn't happen to know which of them it is would you?
Your source, or the court, is lying (or stupid, that's always a possibility- especially when a political economist speaks on legal matters).
But in this case they do.
No "separate authorization" would allow access to the content without probable cause.
Your source said Freeh was lying.
The Court said he wasn't.
Case closed.
No. I assert that no "separate authorization" would allow access to the content without probable cause.
Probable cause, however weak we might judge it to be, must be presented to obtain the content.
Pen/traps are authorized merely on a certification by the agent that it is relevant to an investigation.
"...Charlotte Twight in the fall 2001 issue of THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW."
Published over a year after the court had ruled the law was just as Freeh had testified.
I'm very disappointed in THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW.
There was a difficulty separating content from the address info in packets.
As the court, and Freeh said, the FBI did not have authority to read the content.
Just the opposite of what the author of this says.
CALEA was passed in 1994, how could Freeh possibly be asking for authority the FBI already had for years?
As to what the context very obviously was, you simply don't know even if you did underline your assertion. I would bet if you read the paper this item was (somewhat poorly) summarizing, the content of private communication referred to is indeed things like numbers dialed after the connection.
From the summary:"the CALEA gave the Federal Bureau of Investigation authority to track the physical location of cell phone users "
from her article:
"the court also recognized that in order to gain access to such location information, law enforcement authorities would have to have authorization stronger than mere pen register/traptrace authority."
From the summary"to obtain the content of private communications in a variety of circumstances without a probable-cause warrant. "
from the article:
"Recognizing that packet-mode data transmission may commingle pen register (dialing) information with call content, the court found a probable-cause warrant to be required in these circumstances."
Thanks, I sometimes amuse myself in the checkout line by seeing how the tabloid articles are "somewhat poorly" summarized on the covers.
I won't go into criticism of her actual article here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.