From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:52:47 GMT

This is the Big Brother bill that's been circulating previously.  See
the original article in comp.org.eff.talk for the bill itself.

In article <1992Sep2.181158.4511@eff.org>, rita@eff (Rita Marie Rouvalis) writes:
>The following is the latest version of the FBI Digital Telephony 
>Proposal, introduced in May 1992. This version removes the previous 
>language that authorized the FCC to set standards and now places it 
>solely in the hands of the Attorney General. Fines are $10,000/day for 
>non compliance with services within the public switched network having 
>18 months to comply and services outisde having three years.  The 
>proposal now manadates that the capability for remote government 
>wiretapping must be included into the system.
>
>This proposal clearly enhances the ability of the FBI to monitor 
>communications.  It takes the unprecendented step of placing control 
>over certification of telecommunications equipment in the hands of the 
>Attorney General and requires that the equipment be constucted to allow 
>government have the ability to monitor communications from a 
>"government monitoring facility remote from the target facility."  All 
>telecommunications users should be concerned by the privacy and 
>security implications of creating systems that have holes for the 
>government or any other knowledgable user to plug into.
>
>
>102nd Congress
>    2nd Session
>
>                              S. _____
>                           [H.R. _____]
>
>                         IN THE SENATE
>             [IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES]

[ Most of bill deleted ]

Note that the fine is "a civil penalty", which if I understand
correctly is a tool to violate the U.S. Constitution clause about "due
process" - ie. because it's not a criminal law, the usual "burden of
proof" doesn't apply and the courts won't say it's a violation of due
process (the same method as in the legalized robbery known as civil
forfeiture laws and the proposed forced eviction laws).  You'll have
to double-check this, though.

Here's the excerpt which all Usenet sites, FIDOnet sites, BBS system
keepers etc. among other electronic communications service providers
in USA would have to comply with or pay $10,000 / day and be put under
a restraining order (unless excepted by The Attorney General, after
consultation with the Department of Commerce, the Small Business
Administration and Federal Communications Commission).


      (a)  Providers of electronic communication services and private 
branch exchange operators shall provide within the United States 
capability and capacity for the government to intercept wire and 
electronic communications when authorized by law:  
     (1)  concurrent with the transmission of the communication to the 
recipient of the communication;
     (2)  in the signal form representing the content of the 
communication between the subject of the intercept and any individual 
with whom the subject is communicating, exclusive of any other signal 
representing the content of the communication between any other 
subscribers or users of the electronic communication services provider 
or private branch exchange operator, and including information on the 
individual calls (including origin, destination and other call set-up 
information), and services, systems, and features used by the subject 
of the interception;
     (3)  notwithstanding the mobility of the subject of the intercept 
or the use by the subject of the intercept of any features of the 
telecommunication system, including, but not limited to, speed- dialing 
or call forwarding features;
     (4)  at a government monitoring facility remote from the target 
facility and remote from the system of the electronic communication 
services provider or private branch exchange operator;
     (5)  without detection by the subject of the intercept or any 
subscriber;  and
     (6)  without degradation of any subscriber's telecommunications 
service.

[ ... ]


     (e)  The Attorney General shall have exclusive authority to 
enforce the provisions of subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this section.  
The Attorney General may apply to the appropriate United States 
District Court for an order restraining or enjoining any violation of 
subsection (a), (b) or (c) of this section.  The District Court shall 
have jurisdiction to restrain and enjoin violations of subsections (a) 
of this section.
     (f)  Any person who willfully violates any provision of subsection 
(a) of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of $10,000 per 
day for each day in violation.  The Attorney General may file a civil 
action in the appropriate United States District Court to collect, and 
the United States District Courts shall have jurisdiction to impose, 
such fines.
     (g)  Definitions--As used in subsections (a) through (f) of this 
section--
     (1)  'provider of electronic communication service' or 'private 
branch exchange operator' means any service or operator which provides 
to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic 
communication, as those terms are defined in subsections 2510(1) and 
2510(12) of Title 18, United States code, respectively, but does not 
include the government of the United States or any agency thereof;
     (2)  'communication' means any wire or electronic communication, 
as defined in subsections 2510(1) and 2510(12), of Title 18, United 
States Code;
     (3)  'intercept' shall have the same meaning as set forth in 
section 2510(4) of Title 18, United States Code;  and
     (4)  'government' means the Government of the United States and 
any agency or instrumentality thereof, any state or political 
subdivision thereof, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, 
territory or possession of the United States.      


//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy