From The SPOTLIGHT
10/17/94

Your Privacy Up for Grabs

The new "Wiretap Access Bill" before Congress was the subject of
quite a bit of congressional testimony at hearings earlier this year.
You may remember the bill as the proposed legislation I described in
these pages last summer.

Yes, it's the alarming "Digital Telephony and Privacy Improvement
Act" drafted by the FBI. Amazingly, the 'Wiretap Access Bill" is now
in the respective Judiciary Committees of both houses of Congress. In
the House of Representatives, the bill number is H.R.  4922. The
identical bill is numbered S. 2375 in the Senate. By all indications,
it's on a fast track to a vote before the October congressional
recess.

The Wiretap Access Bill" was proposed by the Clinton adminis-
tration's top law enforcers, Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI
Director Louis Freeh. These paragons of Clintonite justice have been
pushing very hard to make this patently evil thing the law of the
land. Director Freeh may have pushed a little too hard, as you'll
see.

SURVEILLANCE IS PRIVACY The "Wiretap Access Bill" legalizes
automatic, remote-controlled, digital wiretapping and room-bugging
equipment. This computerized equipment operates on our country's new
digital telephone network and it has existed for years. Planning
documents for this frightful automated snooping system describe
extensive tests of the equipment against unsuspecting Americans--the
tests were conducted apparently without warrants or court orders.

The "Requirements" documents of the system--leaked from a computer
manufacturer and dated 1990--describe a continuous, wide-scale
testing program for the equipment. The test involved the blanket
surveillance of telephone subscribers in six American cities.  What
  makes the "Wiretap Access Bill" unique--beyond its unbelievable,
Gestapo-like content--is that it's the first law I'm aware of that
attempts to legitimize totalitarian computer and communications
surveillance systems. ABYSMAL BILL

The infamous "Privacy Improvement Act" outraged practically everyone
who read it. And that was just draft legislation. The law before the
congressional judiciary committees is even worse, if that's possible.

This stinker now pays $500 million taxpayer dollars to telephone
companies--to offset the cost of the new, government-designed
computerized equipment designed to eradicates people's privacy.  It's
clear to computer professionals and informed observers that these
systems are already demonstrably in use by America's secret,
permanent government. But it's far from clear whether the defeat of
the "Wiretap Access Bill"--H.R. 4922, S. 2375--will curtain the
deployment and use of this horrible technology.

With or without the legal niceties, the devices are already on parts
of the telephone network, and it's clear these things are already
being used--possibly used extensively.

All of which raises an interesting question: How have the "tests" of
the surveillance equipment affected government statistics on court
ordered surveillance? That's a story in itself.

LIES & STATISTICS Winston Churchill was at his quotable best when he
talked about numbers. "There are liars," he growled. "There are
damned liars.  And then there are statisticians."

Now it's time to look at the Director of the FBI, his wiretapping
statistics, and his sworn congressional testimony and public comments
for the "Wiretap Access Bill."

Freeh testified extensively (under oath) before congressional com-
mittees in support of Clinton's wiretap access bill. He also spoke to
just about every newspaper, TV program and power group that would
give him room to tout his high-tech snooper system.

Unfortunately, Freeh's numbers don't add up. Even if you believe the
FBI would actually tell the truth about its domestic surveillance
operations, there are serious questions about the sworn testimony the
FBI director gave before Congress.

Freeh's statements and testimony don't add up. For example, on Feb.
17 he told the Executive Club of Chicago, "Development of technology
is moving so rapidly that several hundred court authorized
surveillances have already been prevented by new technological
impediments."

Imagine: Hundreds of spies, terrorists, hate groups and
troublemakers--like us--all flouting the feds' fierce efforts to tap
the phones and bug homes of the iniquitous. Sounds dangerous, doesn't
it?

Don't worry. The Republic was much safer a month later, on March 18,
when Freeh testified in Congress. "We have instances of 91
cases--this was based on a 1993 study the FBI did with respect to
state and local law enforcement . . . "

And America was safer on May 16 when he told Newsday, "We've
determined about 81 cases around the country where we were unable to
execute a court-authorized electronic surveillance order because of
lack of access to that particular system--a digital switch, a digital
loop, or some blocking technology . . . "

Unfortunately, three days later, our country was in serious peril
once again, according to Freeh. On May 19, he told the American Law
Institute, "Within the last month, the FBI conducted an informal
survey of federal and local law enforcement . . . which revealed over
180 instances when law enforcement was precluded from implementing or
fully implementing . . . " You know the rest.  [Notice how Freeh is
careful to avoid saying "wiretapping" - He says "electronic
surveillance." That's continuous eavesdropping-- through telephones,
perhaps?] FBI FIBS

Of course, what's really peculiar about Freeh's numbers is his
pervious congressional testimony on wiretaps. He announced that there
were less than 1,000 court-approved wiretaps nationwide.  That's
roughly the same number every FBI director has cited since J. Edgar
Hoover was conning Congress in the 1960s.

So, if you believe Freeh's "Wiretap Access Bill" numbers, his FBI
tried to increase domestic surveillance by 20 percent in the month of
May alone. (Remember what Churchill said about statisticians?) More
likely you'll conclude the "FBI" might appropriately be renamed
"Fib," based on cooked numbers served up to Congress.

It's now a matter of record that Hoover had his agents run tens of
thousands of illegal bugs on Congress, the executive branch, the
courts, journalists and just plain folks. In fact, the Washington,
D.C. telephone company had to run a heavy-duty trunk cable into a
disused building to support Hoover's total surveillance of Congress.
When it was discovered in the mid-70s, the cable still carried
thousands of congressional telephone calls.

Freeh's numbers got the FBI sued--some computer patriots want to know
where the FBI's fast changing numbers come from and they sued to get
it when the FBI wouldn't produce Freeh's "informal studies." Will
Freeh's numbers get Clinton the votes he needs to pass the horrible
"Wiretap Access Bill" (H.R. 4922 and S. 2375)?  Let's see that they
don't. You can call the office of Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Texas),
chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, at (202) 2256565--or fax
him at (202) 225-1584. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, has no fax, but can be called at (202)
224-4242.

