Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 07:59:54 -0800 (PST)
From: booloo@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov (Mark Boolootian)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Released GSA Docs Slam FBI Wiretap Proposal
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 36, Message 1 of 8

Moderator's Note: Mark passed along this correspondence from Dave
Banisar discussing a recent newspaper report.  PAT]

  Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 23:22:47 -0500
  From: Dave Banisar <banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
  Subject: Released GSA Docs Slam FBI Wiretap Proposal

"GSA Memos Reveal that FBI Wiretap Plan was Opposed by Government's
Top Telecomm Purchaser"

The {New York Times} reported today on a document obtained by CPSR
through the Freedom of Information Act.  ("FBI's Proposal on Wiretaps
Draws Criticism from G.S.A.," {New York Times}, January 15, 1993, p.
A12)

The document, an internal memo prepared by the General Services
Administration, describes many problems with the FBI's wiretap plan
and also shows that the GSA strongly opposed the sweeping proposal.
The GSA is the largest purchaser of telecommunications equipment in
the federal government.

The FBI wiretap proposal, first announced in March of 1992, would have
required telephone manufacturers to design all communications
equipment to facilitate wire surveillance.  The proposal was defeated
last year. The FBI has said that it plans to reintroduce a similar
proposal this year.

The documents were released to Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility, a public interest organization, after CPSR submitted
Freedom of Information Act requests about the FBI's wiretap plan to
several federal agencies last year.

The documents obtained by CPSR reveal that the GSA, which is
responsible for equipment procurement for the Federal government,
strongly opposed two different versions of the wiretap plan developed
by the FBI.  According to the GSA, the FBI proposal would complicate
interoperability, increase cost, and diminish privacy and network
security.  The GSA also stated that the proposal could "adversely
_affect national security._"

In the second memo, the GSA concluded that it would be a mistake to
give the Attorney General sole authority to waive provisions of the
bill.

The GSA's objections to the proposal were overruled by the Office of
Management and Budget, a branch of the White House which oversees
administrative agencies for the President.  However, none of GSA's
objections were disclosed to the public or made available to policy
makers in Washington.

Secrecy surrounds this proposal.  Critical sections of a report on the
FBI wiretap plan prepared by the General Accounting Office were
earlier withhold after the FBI designated these sections "National
Security Information."  These sections included analysis by GAO on
alternatives to the FBI's wiretap plan.  CPSR is also pursuing a FOIA
lawsuit to obtain the FBI's internal documents concerning the wiretap
proposal.

The GSA memos, the GAO report and others that CPSR is now seeking
indicate that there are many important documents within the government
which have still not been disclosed to the public.

Marc Rotenberg, CPSR Washington office        rotenberg@washofc.cpsr.org

Note: Underscores indicate underlining in the original text.  Dashes
that go across pages indicate page breaks.

[Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility is a nonprofit, public
interest membership organization. For membership information about CPSR,
contact cpsr@csli.stanford.edu or call 415/322-3778.  For information on
CPSR's FOIA work, contact David Sobel at 202/544-9240
(sobel@washofc.cpsr.org).]

   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                      (#4A)

              Control No. X92050405
               Due Date:     5/5/92

Brenda Robinson (S)

After KMR consultations, we still _"cannot support"_ Draft Bill. No.
118 as substantially revised by Justice after its purported full
consideration of other agencies' "substantive concerns."

Aside from the third paragraph of our 3/13/92 attachment response for
the original draft bill, which was adopted as GSA's position (copy
attached), Justice has failed to fully address other major GSA
concerns (i.e., technological changes and associated costs).

Further, by merely eliminating the FCC and any discussion of cost
issues in the revision, we can not agree as contended by Justice that
it now " ... takes care of kinds of problems raised by FCC and others
 ...."

Finally, the revision gives Justice sole unilateral exclusive
authority to enforce and except or waive the provisions of any
resultant Iaw in Federal District Courts. Our other concerns are also
shown in the current attachment for the revised draft bill.

Once again OMB has not allowed sufficient time for a more through
review, a comprehensive internal staffing, or a formal response.

                       /Signature/

                       Wm. R. Loy  KMR     5/5/92

Info: K(Peay),KD,KA,KB,KE,KG,KV,KM,KMP,KMR,R/F,LP-Rm.4002

(O/F) -   9C1h (2) (a) - File (#4A)

   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                          ATTACHMENT
                 REVISED JUSTICE DRAFT BILL
                       DIGITAL TELEPHONY

The proposed legislation could have a widespread impact on the
government's ability to acquire _new_ telecommunications equipment and
provide electronic communications services.

_Existing_ Federal government telecommunications resources will be
affected by the proposed new technology techniques and equipment. An
incompatibility and interoperability of existing Federal government
telecommunications system, and resources would result due to the new
technological changes proposed.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been removed from the
legislation, but the Justice implementation may require modifications
to the "Communications Act of 1934," and other FCC policies and
regulations to remove inconsistencies. This could also cause an
unknown effect on the wire and electronic communications systems
operations, services, equipment, and regulations within the Federal
government. Further, to change a major portion of the United States
telecommunications infrastructure (the public switched network within
eighteen months and others within three years) seems very optimistic,
no matter how trivial or minimal the proposed modifications are to
implement.

In the proposed legislation the Attorney General has sole _unilateral
exclusive_ authority to enforce, grant exceptions or waive the
provisions of any resultant law and enforce it in Federal District
Courts. The Attorney General would, as appropriate, only "consult"
with the FCC, Department of Commerce, or Small Business
Administration. The Attorney General has exclusive authority in
Section 2 of the legislation; it appears the Attorney General has
taken over several FCC functions and placed the FCC in a mere
consulting capacity.

The proposed legislation would apply to all forms of wire and
electronic communications to include computer data bases, facsimile,
imagery etc., as well as voice transmissions.

The proposed legislation would assist eavesdropping by law
enforcement, but it would also apply to users who acquire the
technology capability and make it easier for criminals, terrorists,
foreign intelligence (spies) and computer hackers to electronically
penetrate the public network and pry into areas previously not open to
snooping. This situation of easier access due to new technology
changes could therefore affect _national security_.

                            (1)

   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The proposed legislation does not address standards and specifications
for telecommunications equipment nor security considerations. These
issues must be addressed as they effect both the government and
private industry. There are also civil liberty implications and the
public's constitutional rights to privacy which are not mentioned.

It must be noted that equipment already exists that can be used to
wiretap the digital communications lines and support court-authorized
wiretaps, criminal investigations and probes of voice communications.
The total number of interception applications authorized within the
United States (Federal and State) has been averaging under nine
hundred per year. There is concern that the proposed changes are not
cost effective and worth the effort to revamp all the existing and new
telecommunications systems.

The proposed bill would have to have the FCC or another agency approve
or reject new telephone equipment mainly on the basis of whether the
FBI has the capability to wiretap it. The federal-approval process is
normally lengthy and the United States may not be able to keep pace
with foreign industries to develop new technology and install secure
communications. As a matter of interest, the proposed restrictive new
technology could impede the United States' ability to compete in
digital telephony and participate in the international trade arena.

Finally, there will be unknown associated costs to implement the
proposed new technological procedures and equipment.  These costs
would be borne by the Federal government, consumers, and all other
communications ratepayers to finance the effort. Both the Federal
government and private industry communications regular phone service,
data transmissions, satellite and microwave transmissions, and
encrypted communications could be effected at increased costs.

                               (2)

[Documents disclosed to Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility (CPSR), under the Freedom of Information Act December
1992.]



Mark Boolootian		booloo@llnl.gov		+1 510 423 1948
Disclaimer:  booloo speaks for booloo and no other.