--..........g:,:k.

" 17 WIRETAPPING, EAVESDROPPING, AND THE 'cfT.1

/

GOVERNMENT BILL OF RIGHTS

Storage

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

ONSTIITTIONAL RIGHTS

OF THE

\

4-

1ITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

NITED STATES SENATE

PURSUANT TO

S. Res. 234

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

WIRETAPPING, EAVESDROPPING, AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS

MAY 20, 1958

PART 1

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

25928 WASHINGTON : 1958
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

JAMES 0. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman

ESTES KEFAUVER, Tennessee

OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina

THOMAS C. HENNINGS, JR., Missouri

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas

JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Wyoming

SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina

JOHN A. CARROLL, Colorado

ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin

WILLIAM LANGER, North Dakota

WILLIAM E. JENNER, Indiana

ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah

EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois

JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland

ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

THOMAS C. FIENNINGS, JR., Missouri, Chairman

JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Wyoming

SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina

OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina

WILLIAM LANGER, North Dakota

ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah

ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska

CHARLES H. SLAYMAN, Jr., Chief Counsel and Staff Director

WILLIAM D. PATTON, First Assistant Counsel

SITE H. MCCANDLEss, Research Assistant
CONTENTS

Statement of— Pats

John J. Hanselman, assistant vice president, American Telephone &

Telegraph Co 2

Prof. Richard Schwartz, Moore School of Electrical Engineering, University of Pennsylvania 8

Hon. Thomas McBride, attorney general, Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania 20

•
I
WIRETAPPING, EAVESDROPPING, AND THE BILL OF

RIGHTS

TUESDAY, NAY 20, 1958

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMIIKEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10: 25 a. m., in room 457,

Senate Office Building, Senator Olin D. Johnston, presiding.

Present: Senators Johnston and Hruska.

Also present: Charles H. Slayman, Jr., chief counsel and staff director; and William D. Patton, first assistant counsel; and Thomas B.

Collins, professional staff member, Committee on the Judiciary.

Senator JOHNSTON. The committee will come to order.

This hearing today marks the beginning of a series of public hearings planned by the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, dealing

with the subject of wiretapping and the Bill of Rights. Another session has been scheduled for the day after tomorrow, and other sessions will be scheduled and announced in the future as appropriate.

The session today will be devoted primarily to the background questions: What is wiretapping? How is it done? What methods exist

today for overhearing or intercepting conversations?

I want to emphasize that today's hearings are primarily preliminary

in nature. We do not intend to deal today with the basic questions

motivating our entire study of the subject, that is: How do eavesdropping, wiretapping, and similar invasions of privacy affect our constitutional rights; and are present-day laws sufficient to protect the

rights of the individual?

It is my expectation that these hearings, and, indeed, the subcommittee's entire study of the subject of wiretapping, will be conducted in a

completely objective manner, with no preconceived and unshakable

judgments regarding the subject. The subcommittee hopes to obtain

all the facts.

I will say—and I am sure I speak for all members of the subcommittee on this score—that during the course of our study of this important subject, we shall be zealous in our concern for the rights of

the individual, and will scrutinize with great care any alleged violations of these rights.

We will call the first witness.

Mr. SLAYMAN. Mr. John J. Hanselman, assistant vice president,

American Telephone & Telegraph Co., who has come down from New

York City.

Senator JOHNSTON. You may proceed in such manner as you see fit,

Mr. Hanselman.

1
2 WIRETAPPING

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. HANSELMAN, ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT,

AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO.

Mr. HANSELMAN. My name is John J. Hanselman, and, as has been

stated, I am assistant vice president of the American Telephone &

Telegraph Co. in the operation and engineering department in .New

York City. For most of my telephone career I have had supervisory

responsibility for assisting the associated Bell System companies in

the commercial development of the telephone business.

Let me say at the outset that we very much appreciate this opportunity to come here and talk with you very briefly about telephone

communications and its place in the social, business, and governmental

activities of this country.

Twill proceed with this statement, if you agree.

Telephone service today is a vital factor in practically all of our

activities. Perhaps the best way to appreciate its impact and importance is to consider what would happen if we should suddenly be

without telephone service. It is quite obvious, I believe, that all

government, business, and social activity would almost immediately

be slowed down and very shortly come to a standstill.

In a relatively short span of years, the telephone has grown from

a useful device for the few to a vital everyday necessity for all. Hardly any business is so small as to be without telephone service, and

larger business firms may have several thousand telephones at a single

location. Today, 4 out of 5 families have telephones in their homes.

There are now over 64 million telephones in the United States. This

is three times as many as in 1940. Since 1920 there has been a 400

percent growth in telephones, while population has increased only 60

percent.

Telephone service here has also been growing much faster than

households. Today 78 percent of the households have telephone service, which is more than twice as many as in 1940.

Not only is the number of telephones growing rapidly, but perhaps

even more importantly, the use of the telephone has grown equally

dramatically. Every day there are 230 million local telephone conversations, and, in addition, 10 million long-distance conversations.

This comes to a total of about 80 billion telephone conversations per

year.

The average annual telephone conversations per person in the

United States has grown from 161 in 1920 to 246 in 1940, and today

stands at 460. This further indicates the increasingly intimate relationship between the growth in telephone usage and the growth and

development of this country.

Close to 85 percent of the telephone service in the United States is

provided by the Bell System and its associated companies. The remainder is provided by some 4,100 independent telephone companies,

practically all of which interconnect with the Bell System and with

each other.

Incidentally, some 55 percent of the world's telephones are in the

United States, even though we have only 6 percent of the world's

population. Virtually all of the world's telephones can be reached by

any telephone in this country.
WIRETAPPING

There are many reasons why telephone service has developed so

rapidly. For example, the spreading out of our population to all

four corners of the country, the increasing size of towns and cities,

the tremendous development of suburban areas, good roads and automobiles, have all contributed their part.

Also, the steadily increasing tempo of business, the Nation's demand

for a wide variety of products and services, the keen competition for

the consumer's dollars, the increasing complexity of the means of

production and distribution, have combined to make the telephone

more and more of a necessity. To illustrate:

Government, in order to carry on effectively and exercise its functions in the public welfare, uses the telephone.

The Defense Department, in preparing for the national defense, uses

the telephone.

The farmer who wants to make an emergency repair on his tractor

or find the best market for his produce, uses the telephone.

The manufacturer who wants to order more raw material or arrange

for a shipment of his product, uses the telephone.

The oil company that wants to confer with its geologist regarding

the location of a new oil field, uses the telephone.

The chemical company that wants to discuss a new and valuable

formula with its research laboratories, uses the telephone.

The financial house which wants to arrange a loan or market

securities, uses the telephone.

The consumer, whether businessman or housewife, uses the telephone.

The telephone is used for all these and many other business purposes,

whether on a local or long-distance basis, because it provides an immediate, direct, private means of communication that is almost the

equivalent of a face-to-face conversation. The telephone shatters

distance because it is equally effective whether the other person is

in a nearby office, across the continent, or overseas.

The telephone is likewise used for a wide variety of family and

social purposes. Here the intimate, personal quality of the telephone

has made it possible to keep in touch with parents or children at

distant points, to give encouragement or sympathy to loved ones, to

hold families together, to make new families grow, to keep in touch

with friends, both new and old.

Another reason for the rapid growth of the use of the telephone is

that telephone service is continually being improved.

The average long-distance connection took 14 minutes to complete

in 1920. The speed of completing connection in 1930 was reduced

to 2 minutes, but today the average long-distance call is completed

in only 72 seconds.

In 1920, the quality of transmission was equivalent to 2 people

talking to each other while they were some 50 feet apart. In 1940,

improved transmission brought the 2 talkers within 20 feet. Today

transmission has been further improved to a point equivalent to their

talking to each other face-to-face, that is, only 6 feet apart.

Another example of service improvement is that the percent of Bell

telephones with dial service has gone from 32 percent in 1930 to 60

percent in 1940, to 76 percent in 1950, and about 92 percent today.

Rapid progress is also being made in arrangements which permit

customers to dial long-distance calls.
4 WIRETAPPING

Business telephones have always been largely on an individual line

basis. But in recent years the greater privacy and availability of

individual lines has put them in great demand for residence service

also. Four-party service is being rapidly eliminated and more residences have individual line service now than ever before. Rural

service has also been improved by reducing the number of parties on

the line, providing full metallic circuits, and eliminating the old handcrank telephone.

Telephone service has also been made more convenient by means

of new and improved telephone instruments. A great variety of

telephone arrangements are available for the office and place of business. In the home, extension telephones in color are now located in

the bedroom, kitchen, living room, or other handy locations. Extensions make it easier to originate calls, as well as to answer incoming

calls promptly.

Finally, telephone service is attractive because of its low cost.

While telephone rates have been increased somewhat in recent years,

the increases have been low as contrasted to price increases of other

commodities and services and the overall cost of living. For example,

to pay the average monthly bill for minimum local service in the

larger cities required 3.7 hours of work for the average factory worker

in 1940, and only 1.7 hours in 1957. The relatively low rates for

telephone service bring it within the reach of practically everyone.

They have been made possible, in spite of increased wages and increased material costs, through continuous improvements in the art

of telephony and the more efficient management of the business.

This ability to develop a valuable service at reasonable rates has

in turn attracted to the Bell System alone more than 1,600,000 shareowners, whose investment in the business makes available the capital

needed to support its growth and development.

In conclusion, then, telephone service has grown far more rapidly

than population and many other criteria of growth, such as general

business activity. It uniquely meets the current communication needs

of government, business, and the home. Telephone service has been

continuously improved and tailored to better fit in with the wide

variety of its customers' needs. It is fast, dependable, and economical. Its employees, both management and nonmanagement, have the

respect and esteem of the communities in which they work and live.

Anything that would detract from the confidence which the public

has in the privacy of telephone service would be a serious blow, not

only to the telephone industry, but, perhaps more importantly, to

the country as a whole.

Senator JOHNSTON. I would like to ask just a few questions at this

time, after listening to the fine statement that you have presented

here.

Is it not your opinion, as an official of the telephone company, that

Americans today use the telephone for local and long-distance calls

in connection with their families, their personal, and private relationships, as well as for social, business, and professional matters?

Mr. HANSELMAN. Yes indeed, that is true.

Senator JOHNSTON. 

Yes,

that being so, what procedures has the

telephone company followed to prevent its own employees from listening in on private telephone conversations? When I ask that ques-
WIRETAPPING 5

tion, I mean its own employees, of course, operators and other

personnel.

Mr. HANSELMAN. Of course, only a relatively small proportion of

the total employees have access to equipment which would permit

listening in on telephone conversations. That is primarily the operators and also the plant installation and maintenance people. Of

course, as you know, more and more of our telephone service is on a

dial basis, both local and long-distance.

Now, with regard to the procedures the telephone company follows,

I might say this: In the first place, the telephone company is exceedingly careful in the choice of its employees. I am not completely sure

of these figures, but out of 30 applicants for plant jobs, I think only 1

is taken, for a variety of reasons.

Likewise, in our selection of traffic people, a very careful process is

gone through, including a review of the person's background and other

circumstances, which would insure that the telephone company has a

responsible, competent individual.

Following such a careful selection, the telephone company makes

available to all employees a part (sec. 605) of the Communications

Act, which tells what the requirements are with regard to maintaining

the secrecy of telephone communications and the prohibition against

divulging any information which they may happen to hear.

Those people who are directly associated with line equipment and

switchboards, in most cases are asked to sign a statement in which

is outlined what the requirements are with regard to the secrecy of

telephone service. In this way we are sure that our employees not

only have the written material before them, but, in fact, that they have

read it.

In addition, the supervisory people continuously watch the people to

make sure that there is no listening in.

Perhaps more importantly, as far as our traffic people are concerned,

there is no reason why they would listen in on telephone calls. They

are instructed and trained, the minute the connection is up, to cut out

of the connection. That is necessary, because they have to go on and

work on the next call.

As a general proposition, with the very close supervision we have of

both our traffic and plant people, there is very, very little opportunity

for listening in. We feel that with the training and instruction given

to our employees, they very carefully observe the regulations of the

Federal Communications Commission, and such state requirements

as there may be.

Senator JouNsTorr. Now, what steps does the telephone company

take to prevent other people from listening in on private telephone

conversations ? I mean by "other people," of course, in that question,

people other than telephone company employees.

Mr. HANSELMAN. Well, in the first place, our operating buildings

are closely guarded for a variety of reasons, so that an outside person

does not have access to that part of our equipment which would permit him or her to listen in on connections.

An outside person would not be allowed in the telephone company

building unless he had passed certain security regulations, and in most

of our buildings, a person not a telephone company employee is re25928-58-pt. 1-2
6 WIRETAPPING

quired to either wear a badge to designate him individually to other

employees that are around, or be continuously accompanied by a

supervisory person.

Mr. SLAYMAN. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like

to ask a few questions along the line of your last question.

Senator JOHNSTON. Proceed.

Mr. SLAYMAN. Then, moving a step further, Mr. Hanselman, what

steps does the telephone company take to insure the privacy which you

mentioned in your prepared statement to the paying customers of the

telephone service? What steps do you take?

You have described how you keep other people out of the building,

but what steps do you take with regard to the telephone lines themselves and junction boxes into a business building? How do you protect the customer from wiretapping by anybody other than employees

of the telephone company?

Mr. HANSELMAN. I am afraid you are getting somewhat outside

of my personal field, because I am a commercial businessman, and

these questions you are raising are more directly related to our plant

operations.

But I could say this from my broad general knowledge of the

business: I know that we have our own employees continuously

examining and working on the outside plant, and if at any time they

should find any irregularity, they take such appropriate steps as seem

desirable to eliminate it.

I might say that it is an extremely rare occasion for the telephone

company employees to find any irregularity in the operation of the

facilities.

Senator HRLISKA. Will the chairman yield?

If anything were observed by way of tampering with junction boxes

themselves, what steps would be taken by your employees?

Mr. HANSELMAN. They would report it to their supervisory people,

and they in turn would report it to the appropriate law-enforcement

officials if there seemed to be any reason for it.

Senator HIMSKA. Is there any inspection of these boxes for this

eventuality, or is there anything- else which would draw to their attention anything which would be irregular in any of these

connections?

Mr. HANSELMAN. So far as I know, such inspections are made, of

course, at any time anyone believes or feels that for some reason there

may be a tap on his wire. In that case, the telephone company does

make a special investigation of that customer's line.

Senator HRUSKA. There are occasions, are there not, for routine

checkups and service calls of other kinds, which, as a byproduct,

would probably disclose anything that was irregular? Would that

be true?

Mr. HANSELMAN. Yes, that is quite true, and I had intended to

cover that in my first comment, that in the day-to-day operations, our

employees are all cautioned to be aware of any irregularities in the

outside plant or the terminal boxes.

V Senator JOHNSTON. Do you do anything- in the field of educating

your customers to tell when a wire might be tapped, a buzzing or

just a sound so that they can tell when it is tapped? Do you do any4thing in that field whatsoever?
WIRETAPPING 7

Mr. HANSELMAN. That is a technical question which is really pretty

difficult to answer. Frankly, I do not know of anything which can be

done that would clearly intimate to a customer that there was some

irregularity on his line.

Senator JOHNSTON. IS it not true that if a wire is tapped it does

leave, in some instances, a buzzing sound, a little buzz?

Mr. HANSELMAN. I really do not know, and I doubt whether that

is true in a great many cases.

Senator JOHNSTON. Well, what if a recording is being made? Can

you not usually tell that?

Mr. HANSELMAN. Well, really, again I think this is something a

technical man might be in a better position to answer. My knowledge

is largely derived from what I have read, and probably you folks

have read, too, in newspapers. This is a technical question, and I

could well appreciate that a wire conceivably could be tapped without

a person knowing that a tap has been placed/

Senator JOHNSTON. Well, in your opinion? and from your association with the telephone company, can a paying customer of the telephone company make any valid assumption about whether his telephone is being tapped or note

Mr. HANSELMAN. Yes I think he can make the assumption that it

is not being tapped, because of the various precautions which we

take to make sure that the telephone plant is not tampered with in

our day-to-day operations. And this matter of tapping wires, I

understand, is an exceedingly difficult thing to do under many circumstances. To find the particular cable, the particular wires—it is a

rather difficult thing to do.

So I think our customers can generally assume that there is no wiretap on their lines.

Senator JOHNSTON. You say that they can assume that. How would

they know whether or not a wire was tapped?

Mr. HANSELMAN. Well, I do not know that there would be any

easy way in any case that they would know.

If they did notice some sound, some noises, some buzzing, why that

might create a suspicion in their minds. They probably would report

it to the telephone company, and the telephone company would then

investigate to see whether it is a loose connection somewhere, or

whether it is actually a tap on the wire.

The buzzing sounds can be created by many things. The mere fact

that there is some noise on the line may be due, on rainy days, to just

water getting in on a loose connection, which sometimes causes a slight

sound. So that there could be no assurance that any noise does mean

that there is a tap on the wire.

But should a noise occur, the customer is instructed to report it to

the telephone company, and the telephone company would very

promptly completely review the customer's facilities to make sure that,

they are in good working order, and that there are no foreign attachments on them.

Senator JOHNSTON. We certainly thank you for coming here today.

Mr. HANSELMAN. Thank you,sir.

Senator HRTJSKA. The record may show at this point that Senator

Johnston was called away for other committee business, and we will

carry on the committee until he gets back.
8 WIRETAPPING

Senator JOHNSTON. Senator Hruska will take the chair until I

get back.

Mr. SLAYMAN. The next witness is Prof. Richard Schwartz of the

Moore School of Electrical Engineering, University of Pennsylvania,

Philadelphia, Pa.

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Schwartz, have you a statement for us?

STATEMENT OF PROF. RICHARD F. SCHWARTZ, MOORE SCHOOL OF

ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. SCHWARTZ. I do not have a prepared statement because of the

shortness of both time and secretarial help, which did not allow me to

get one made. I have some prepared notes from which I would like

to speak; you may ask me questions, of course, on any points that are

not clear.

My name is Richard F. Schwartz, and I am a research associate in

electrical engineering, at the University of Pennsylvania.

Senator HRUSKA. How long have you been with the university?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. I have been with the university since 1951, but I

have been engaged in communications engineering research and teaching since 1946.

Senator HRIISKA. Where did you get your schooling?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, where I received

a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering in 1943, and a master's

degree in 1948; and at the University of Pennsylvania where I have

completed all of the course requirements for the doctor's degree in

electrical engineering.

I have had some experience in industry as well as at the university,

in the field of communication engineering and electronics.

About last July, Mr. Samuel Dash, former district attorney of

Philadelphia, called the Moore School of Electrical Engineering and

wanted to know if we could supply him with a technical expert in the

field of communication engineering to guide him in a study he was

making for the Pennsylvania Bar Association on the subject of wiretapping and electrical eavesdropping. This study was being financed

by the Fund for the Republic.

I was called in to satisfy this requirement for a consultant, even

though at the time I wasn't too well acquainted with the field of wiretapping.

Senator HRUSKA. When did this occur? When did you get this

call?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. This was a year ago, about the first of July.

In the following months I undertook a concentrated study of the

technology of the subject, attempting to explain to the lawyers who

were undertaking the main study what could be done and what could

not be done; what was possible on the basis of sound engineering

practice; what was possible on the basis of technical skill. I was also

required to answer certain question as to how the person being eavesdropped could defend himself against these things.

I was required to look into a great many things which were rumor.

Some had been reported in the literature; some were verbally reported. I interviewed a number of people. I read what I could find

on the subject, and I analyzed what I could find and tried to explain
WIRETAPPING 9

in a report for the Pennsylvania Bar Association what these things

were all about.

Senator HRUSKA. Have you rendered your report?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. The report has not yet been released, and therefore

it is not yet available for public consumption, but it will be very

shortly, and I imagine a copy will be available to this committee at

that time.

I was asked by Mr. Slayman when he contacted me if I would give

the background technology of this subject, and I understood his

instructions to mean I was to discuss eavesdropping as a whole for

the committee, and I have made some notes on it.

I would like to talk first about the telephone system and how

vulnerable it is to tapping.

The telephone system is, at least theoretically, vulnerable to tapping

anyplace between the subscriber at one end and the subscriber at the

other end. Now, there are certain points where it is much more vulnerable than other places. These points are within the premises of the

subscriber himself, and within the area up to and including the terminal boxes which were mentioned in the previous testimony.

These terminal boxes are multiple units. That is, there is not just

1 along a given line, but there may be 3 or 4 with the same lines

available at the terminals; in other words, there may be several places

in a neighborhood where the same lines are exposed to anyone who

wish to get at them.

Senator HRusKA. Are the lines not a little more difficult to identify,

however, the farther you get away from it?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. I was going to go into that in a moment.

In the first place, the reason for the multiplicity of the boxes is for

flexibility in the telephone system itself. If a subscriber moves away,

the company may wish to put another phone in, to change the number, or perhaps move a telephone with a certain number to another

location. For this reason, it is very important that they be able to

have access to a certain line from the central office at more than one

place. And it is for this reason that there is more than one terminal

box with the same line available at terminals within.

Now, as far as identifying a particular line, there are two ways in

which it can be done, very broadly.

One is by subterfuge, that is, getting the information somehow from

an official source. Now, since I am only a technical man, I do not

think I should go further into that. But this is one way that it is

reported to have been done.

The other way in which it may be done is by certain electrical tests

that may be made on the line itself. Some of the popular literature

has described wiretappers as having a test by which they put two

fingers across the suspected line, ring the number and wait for a tingle

or shock. If they don't get one they have guessed wrongly. So much

for the direct tapping.

There is another kind of tapping which has been mentioned by

various people; this is called inductive tapping. By means of this

technique, no direct connection to the line itself needs to be made at all.

It is accomplished by a coil of wire which has approximately two or

three thousand turns in it which may be wound either in a flat configuration like a pancake, or into a cylindrical configuration like a pencil.

This coil of wire, when placed in the vicinity of a telephone, may
10 WIRETAPPING

be acted on by what is known as the electromagnetic field of the telephone which induces in the coil a signal that corresponds to the voice

signal on the line itself. Once this phenomenon has occurred, this

signal in turn may be conveyed by wires to a tape recorder or amplifier, or whatever other place the eavesdropper wishes to make of it.

Now, you might think these coils of wire are particularly rare but

I have brought with me some literature which shows that these coils of

wire are available to anyone who wishes to get them.

/This is a bulletin from the Electronics Supermarket, located in

Philadelphia, Pa., and I see listed in here a telephone pickup coil for

$2.90. This shows these items are available to anyone who wishes to

get them./

The particular pickup coil that is advertised is actually for use by,

for example, a businessman who wishes to make a recording of his own

telephone conversations. The coil comes in a size approximately the

size of this envelope [indicating]. It is placed on the desk, the telephone desk set is placed on top of the coil, and the wires from the coil

then can go to a tape recorder.

I do not know how widespread this practice is, but certainly the inexpensiveness of the device makes it almost seem as though everyone

would want to have one.

Senator HRUSKA. I imagine, Mr. Schwartz, that there are other

catalogs; are there not?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. I have some other catalogs I will come to in connection with some other things.

Senator HRUSKA. I am furnished with a copy of a catalog here

which is quite bulky in size, and has a very beautiful cover, quite

attractive. It presumes to tell about radio parts, audio systems, test

equipment, tape recorders, and so on.

Is it true that anyone who wishes to purchase any of these parts

and use them for eavesdropping or wiretapping has free access to

them, if he has a few dollars?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Well, perhaps 90 percent of the parts in the catalog.,

of course, would not be too useful to the wiretapper. To the eavesdropper they would be, because eavesdropping is broader than just

wiretapping. It is true that anyone has access to this sort of thing.

And to have it otherwise would be actually dangerous to the economy,

because our whole radio and television business rests upon the free

purchase of these parts by engineers and technicians and repairmen.

Well, these inductive pickup coils, to return to this subject, are effective over a distance of—well, it is difficult to ascertain the exact distance, but let us say that in a practical case they might be effective up

to 2 feet away from a telephone; and under very unusual circumstances, such as the absence of any other electrical equipment in the

near vicinity, they might be effective over a larger distance.

They come in different configurations, as I mentioned before. It

would be possible, for example, to make one in a cylindrical shape,

equipped with a suction cup, that could be stuck on the wall of a telephone booth, a pay phone, to surreptitiously listen in on a conversation in that manner.

The auxiliary equipments that a wiretapper uses are principally

tape recorders and some specially built equipment to perform unique

functi ons.
WIRETAPPING 11

The tape recorder is necessary because usually the eavesdropper

wants to have a permanent record and not rely on his memory alone.

This would be very important, for example, in cases where—let us

take a hypothetical case—a man or a wife suspects his mate of infidelity, and he or she taps his own telephone; he or she wants to have a

record with which to confront the other person. This apparently is

a fairly widespread practice in some parts of the country.

Another equipment which is necessary for the eavesdropper is an

automatic switch which will turn on a wire recorder or tape recorder.

The tape recorder may have a spool of tape on it that will last 12

hours, and in order that the eavesdropper can go away and make sure

that this machine does not start turning and use up all the tape when

no one is talking on the telephone, it is usually provided with some

sort of switch which is actuated by the telephone itself.

Now, there is one type of switch which is actuated when someone

speaks into the telephone. This is called a voice-actuated switch.

And in that way, the tape recorder will conserve tape to the greatest

degree.

The other type of switch is what is called a line-operated switch,

and this will start the tape recorder working as soon as the receiver

is picked up off the hook. This means if someone picked up the

phone but didn't speak, the tape recorder could be rising up tape and

not recording anything.

Another piece of equipment which is used by wiretappers is a device

for recording the number called. That is, when the number is dialed

the electrical signals that are sent to the main office consist of very

sharp impulses, very closely spaced, so closely spaced that by listening

you couldn't count them. It is necessary to have some sort or a

device that will mark these down so that they can be looked at; then

one can tell what number it is that is being called.

One way of doing this would be to record them on the tape recorder

and then play back the tape recorder at a much slower speed. Then

one could distinguish the individual clicks, and in that way find out

what the number was.

But it is also possible to build a device which will record these in

pen and ink on a moving paper. Such a device could probably be

built for around $50.

/And again, this serves to point out the fact that provided you have

the skill, practically anyone could afford to wiretap./

Senator ilIrCrSKA. Well now, Mr. Schwartz, in that connection, I

have here a catalog from a Connecticut firm. When you speak of

the degree of skill that one needs to build things or to fashion them

or to put them in working order, I have a catalog which on the first

page has this, that this company is a technical and manufacturing

firm, specializing in the design and development and manufacture of

electronic aids for the investigator and/or security officer.

And then they go into a listing of a lot of items, such as technical

investigative kits, vestpocket transmitters, transmitters for concealment behind picture frames, telephone line transmitters which make

it possible to monitor a telephone line from a remote point, and other

similar eavesdropping equipment.

Do you know if there are other such companies in existence which

specialize in eavesdropping equipment, either for investigators or

security officers or for other people?
12 WIRETAPPING

Mr. SCHWARTZ. There are a number of companies which manufacture equipment for law-enforcement agencies. Usually one has to

have proper authorization in order to even get a catalog, or to order

from these companies. In fact, I had never heard of such outlets

until I started this study; then Mr. Dash, with his previous experience as district attorney, made me acquainted with the fact there were

such companies.

I have here a bulletin of another one. This one is located in Chicago.

And there is one located out on the west coast that I know of.

Senator HRUSKA. From your study of the situation this far, would

it be very difficult for someone not authorized to really lay his hands

on one of these catalogs and do a little ordering? And if he did, and

were not authorized, did your studies disclose that maybe his order

would not be filled if it was accompanied by good United States

currency?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. I did not look into that particular aspect of the

situation because it was evident to me as an electronics engineer that

anybody that was skilled in electronics could probably do the same

thing with parts that were available.

Senator HRUSKA. I understand, but some people are not skilled in

electronics, and they may have the desire and urge to do a little eavesdropping or wiretapping. It is that type of person to whom I am now

addressing my inquiry.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. It probably would be possible for these people by

subterfuge or otherwise to get hold of such catalogs and illegally order

the equipment. I do not know exactly how it would be done. But I

think there would be ways of trying it anyway.

I would like to talk a little bit about the detection of taps, particularly in view of the fact that this was mentioned before in the previous

testimony.

I agree pretty much with Mr. Hanselman on the pains that the

telephone company goes to to try to maintain a secure system. In fact,

you have a tap on your phone, the only real way to find it is by inspection of the system itself, unless the tap is done in a very unskillful

wail

Now, you mentioned before, Mr. Chairman, the fact that buzzes and

clicks on the line might indicate a tap. Buzzes and clicks on the line,

or any other extraneous noises, are more likely to indicate something

wrong with the line, such as moisture or a terminal which is bad.

Certainly‘a skilled wiretapper would take pains to try to avoid introducing any additional noise, and it is perfectly possible to tap a line

without introducing any additional noise. So that this is not a reliable yardstick by which to judge whether a line is being tapped(

The telephone company has a number of routine tests that are made

from the central office, mainly to check the statistical performance of

their system. And some of these are called capacitance tests, for example, which test the quality of the telephone line from hour to hour;

these tests are made around the clock.

It is my understanding from talking with telephone engineers that

if anyone tampers with a line and does it in an unskillful way, this

will show up on the capacitance test.

There are also tests for what is called unbalance, and there are

numerous other tests which I do not want to burden you with the

details of, that the telephone company can make.
WIRETAPPING 13

But, in the final analysis, the finding of a tap rests upon inspection

of the premises and each of the junction boxes between one customer

and another.

Senator HRUSKA. Even if something were indicated on any of this

equipment, however, would that necessarily enable them to locate the

location of a tap?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. It might enable them to locate one but again it

might not—certainly it would be located as to what line it was on, but

the actual location along that line would probably not be clear without inspection.

Now, there is one other thing in this connection which you mentioned

yourself, and that was the detection of a tape recorder connected to a

line. /A tape recorder is usually possible to detect when it is connected

to a telephone line. Most tape recorders make use of an inaudible

high frequency signal which is called an ultrasonic signal. It has an

important use in the mechanism of tape recording. This signal can

leak onto the telephone line and can be detected by appropriate equipment/

As far as protection of the system, how could one make the telephone

more secure? Of course, one could prescribe locking all the terminal

boxes, but a person who would do such a thing as wiretapping, would

not be stopped by a lock, so this is not very realistic.

There are possibilities for protecting a given system, however. That

is, if you want a private line from point A to point B, you could

protect this given system because you would have complete control

over the route over which the lines went.

But when the system is as widespread as a general telephone system, when you want the freedom to call any customer in the country

and you have to go through the central office, it becomes very difficult

to prescribe any additional precautions that could be taken to protect

the telephone system.

/Senator HRUSKA. What you are saying in effect is that there is no

foolproof system of protecting the privacy of telephone conversations.

Is that not about the effect of your statement?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. That is right. /

With your permission, I would now like to progress on the other

forms of eavesdropping. However, before I do so, I can point out just

one additional thing with regard to telephone systems.

I have two other catalogs here which have listed in them such items

as, a Western Electric linesman phone, a complete telephone system,

desk sets and wall sets, telephone hand sets. I mention this because

these things might be useful to the potential wiretapper, and these are

also readily available to anyone who wants to get them.

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Witness, the staff here has furnished me with

a little brochure in that same connection about devices, one of which

is described as follows:

The Executive: A desk pen-set microphone; concealed-type microphone with

inkwell design; very sensitive pickup, and ideal when disguised microphone is required; actual ballpoint pen surmounting the detecting structure.

Is that the thing you are talking about, eavesdropping in a de luxe

way?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. That is correct. That is the aspect of the thing I am

going into next.

25928-58--pt. 1---3
14 WIRETAPPING

Senator HRUSKA. That is fine, because our curiosity has been aroused

by some of the literature we have here, and perhaps some of us have

wished from time to time to have some of those things around at

crucial moments.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Well, the use of microphones for eavesdropping is

fairly straightforward. There are no tricks involved.

Senator HRUSKA. Would there not be if there is a ballpoint pen

with a base that is slightly enlarged for ostensibly decorative purposes?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. This is not a real trick. It is just hiding a microphone in a place that you do not suspect it.

There are many types of microphones. Some are sensitive, an 

some are insensitive; there are large microphones and small microphones; there are expensive microphones and cheap microphones; and

some use batteries and some do not use batteries. And all these types

can be used by the eavesdropper in hiding a microphone in a room

where he wants to pick up some conversation.

Microphones come as small as a half inch in diameter, and some of

them may work well over long distances with a pair of wires. Other

types of microphones, equally small, will only work over a short

distance with a given pair of wires.

I point this out because this shows the latitude of microphones available, so that for any particular situation that an eavesdropper might

have, he has a very wide range of instruments to choose from.

Senator HRUSKA. With reference to distance, we have heard tell of

eavesdropping devices which operate by having a man outside the

building point a special microphone toward a window, for example,

and pick up the voices and conversations of people inside the building.

Is that kind of thing possible?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. That is possible, and with your permission I would

like to return to it later. I was going to say something about directional microphones a little further along.

Senator HRUSKA. Very well.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. One thing which has received some attention in

both the popular literature on this subject and also in some of the

other hearings held other places on wiretapping is the use of silver

paint or some kind of metallic paint in place of the wires to connect

the microphone over here at point A to someplace else at point B.

This silver paint is something which is no mystery to electronic

engineering, because we have been using it for perhaps 15 years now

for the manufacture of what are called printed circuits. The paint

has particles of silver in it, so that when it dries the particles of silver

touch one another and provide a conductive path along the paint from

one point to another.

In order to illustrate this for the committee, I took some silver paint

yesterday and painted it on this piece of cardboard, and I labeled one

end point A and the other end point B. In case you would like to see

it, you may. I do not know whether you can see it from there.

Senator 1-husKA. It is visible from here, Mr. Schwartz.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. This provides a conducting path from this point

[indicating] to this point [indicating] along the cardboard. .And

instead of 6 inches, I could have gone 20 feet with the same sort of

thing.

Senator HRUSKA. Could you go 60 feet?
WIRETAPPING 15

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Well, that depends on the type of paint you start

with. The particular paint I have is not a very good conductive paint.

Senator HRUSKA. I mean, with paint of some kind, how far can it

be elongated?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. I do not know that there is any particular limit on

the distance. The principal limitation is that when this paint dries,

it has some brittleness, and if there is any vibration or anything of

that sort, the conducting path may be broken, and then you no longer

have a connection to the microphone.

The way the eavesdropper uses this is to paint two wires on a floor or

on a baseboard from the hidden microphone, around corners, and so

on, to the point where he wishes to pick up the signal and make use of

it. Then the painted wires can be covered over with either wallpaper

or with additional paint that matches the color of the walls. Or

maybe the paint will blend in with the surroundings and will not need

any further concealment.

This paint is not expensive. It also is available to anyone who

wishes to get it. I have a sample in my briefcase if anyone wants to

see what it really looks like.

Senator HRUSKA. Have you names of companies and their addresses

and telephones? [Laughter.]

Mr. SCHWARTZ. One of the best known manufacturers, I think, is

Du Pont. [Laughter.]

Senator HRUSKA. I think that has some significance, because, after

all, if it is a commodity that is readily available, I am sure it has a great

deal of significance for the company. That is not a plug for the company you mentioned, but I presume they have no monopoly on it; am I

right?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. There is no monopoly. There are 6 or 8 companies

in the field of conductive paints, so that you have your choice.

Now, the microphone has certain properties which are drawbacks in

one sense, but also helps in another sense. To make effective use of a

planted microphone, one would want it as close to the person whose

conversation is being recorded as possible. One would say it should

be within about 4 feet for optimum clarity. It is true that microphones will work up to 15 or 20 feet away, but the farther away you

get, the more you pick up extraneous noises, the rattling of other

objects in the room, other conversations, and outside noises coming in

the windows.

However, a microphone can be made somewhat directional. That

is, just an ordinary, small, basic microphone can still be made somewhat directional so it will still have more tendency to pick up sounds

in one direction than another. This can be used to some extent to discriminate against noise.

In addition to this property, every microphone has a certain frequency response; that is, it picks up sounds having certain frequencies

easier than other sounds. Both these properties may be used to discriminate against extraneous noises.

There is another type of microphone which I did not mention before,

that has been mentioned in the various other hearings on this subject,

that is the possibility of converting a telephone to a microphone. An

ordinary telephone sitting on its cradle on the desk can be modified so

that when it is placed on the cradle, when the hook is down, the micro•-

phone in that instrument can still be alive. And by the provision of
16 WIRETAPPING

an additional wire to the set, this sound can be picked up and can be recorded.

Now, this was one of the things that the Pennsylvania Bar was par- ticularly interested in, because it had been so widely reported, and it

was suspected that the people who were reporting it were not giving this information in good faith. But I checked into the circuitry of the telephone and it is perfectly possible to do this.

Senator HRUSKA. Now, Professor Schwartz, let me get this clear, The telephone is in its normal position in the cradle?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. That is right.

Senator IIRIISKA. And then any conversation in the room around that telephone is still being transmitted?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Not over the telephone line. It is being transmitted

to an additional wire which has been added to the system, and then to a tape recorder or to a listener.

Senator HRUSKA. So that is another version of the ballpoint pen, in other words?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. It is another version of a hidden microphone.

Senator HR1JSKA. Yes.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Now, coming back to your question before, about the concealment of microphones, it is true that these law enforcement agencies that sell equipment to the law enforcement people sell micro- phones that are concealed by all sorts of innocuous gadgetry.

There are possible desk sets, as you mentioned. You could have microphones concealed in lamps; you could have them concealed in briefcases; and many of these things are actually sold by these special agencies that you mentioned for law enforcement.

Mr. SLAYMAN. I did not quite follow you awliile ago on your 4-foot limitation. Would that 4-foot limitation apply to these concealed microphones in lamps, telephones, and ballpoint pens?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. I stated that for optimum pickup of a voice you would want to be within about this distance, if you want freedom from extraneous noise and optimum quality of pickup.

You will notice in a broadcast studio or someplace like that, the microphone is usually a few feet away from the subject. It is not

on top of him, and it is not 20 feet across the room. I would say 3

to 4 feet is usually a good distance.

Now, there is still another type of microphone which I have not said anything about. It was developed for the entertainment field. On the large floors of entertainment places, dance floors and large dining places, frequently an entertainer, a singer, let us say, may wish to circulate among the patrons and it is desired, if she is singing a

song, that all the patrons be able to hear her.

A microphone was developed for this, which is carried on the person of the individual, and it is called a wireless microphone. It con- sists of a little frequency,modulated radio transmitter, which picks up the sound and converts it into a radio wave and transmits this radio wave within a distance of about 1,000 to 1,200 feet away. And at this point, within a 1,200-foot radius, there must be a receiver for this radio wave which will pick it up and abstract the intelligence from the radio wave, and convert it back into sound.

It is called a wireless microphone. They are quite expensive. They may cost over $1,000 apiece. But they are available, again, to anyone.
WIRETAPPING 17

They were developed for a specific use in the entertainment field, but

they are available to anyone who wishes to use them.

The microphone itself is about the size of a pack of cigarettes. Of

course, it requires some batteries to run it, and the batteries take up

a little more space than that. They must be concealed someplace also

on the person.

Now, in order to detect the microphone that is hidden, you have a,

number of techniques which are available to you that were not available in the case of wiretapping. One is to make use of the well

known—that is, it was well known during World War II—mine detector. If there is a little metallic object of any kind hidden in a

room, one could search the room with an instrument like a mine

detector, and one might find it this way. It is true that the mine

detector could be fooled by the springs in a chair, let us say, or the

nails in a wall, but nevertheless this would be one way you could go

about it.

There are other techniques that can be used for detection of wireless

microphones.

Now, directive microphones were something that I said I would

return to. Directive microphones were first developed for aircraft

noise pickup. That is, before the advent of radar in World War II,

our only aircraft detectors were acoustic ones, and these were very

large directive microphones which could pick up the sound of an airplane several miles away. And these microphones were also applied

to the entertainment field for picking up sounds across a football stadium, for example, or for picking up any other sounds at a distance.

One such microphone is called the parabolic microphone, which consists of an ordinary microphone mounted in the center of what is called

a parabolic dish, more accurately called a parabolic reflector. This

parabolic reflector may be 2, 3, or 4 feet in diameter. In a sense, it looks

very much like the antenna of a radar set, which I am sure the committee has seen pictures of. And the principle involved is very much

the same.

Now, the use of a parabolic reflector will increase the effectiveness of

a microphone some 3 to 5 times, j ust to give a rough figure. That

means if a given microphone alone is effective at 20 feet, with a parabolic reflector it could be effective at 100 feet. And at the same time,

it provides a directional property so that it may be pointed at a given

place.

I think that this is what you may have been referring to, Mr. Chairman, when you asked me the question on the directive microphone

before.

There are certain restrictions on parabolic microphones. One could

be pointed from one office window to another across the street and

pick up the conversation inside the second office, provided that window

was open, and provided there were not a lot of drapes or soundabsorbing materials in the other office that would deaden the sound.

There is another type of highly directive microphone.

Senator HRUSKA. Before you leave that, is there any way of detecting the existence or functioning of that type of device you have just

described?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. I know of no way, no electrical way, at any rate, of

detecting such a device. The only way I know of to find such a device
18 WIRETAPPING

would be to actually see it. And, of course, since they are large, there

is some possibility that they could not be too well concealed.

But there is another type of microphone which perhaps is easier

concealed, and which does very much the same thing, and it is called

a tubular microphone. It was described in the technical literature

approximately 20 years ago. It was developed by the Bell Telephone

Laboratories, but I do not believe it has ever found extensive commercial application.

There is a picture of one in a popular magazine I have brought

along. This happened to be Popular Science for October 1957. And

there is a picture of a tubular microphone in here which is available to

the committee to see if they wish.

Senator HRITSKA. Thank you.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. It consists of 50 aluminum tubes, about threeeighths of an inch in diameter. It has been popularly called the shotgun microphone. These tubes are all bundled together like a bundle

of sticks, and there is a basic microphone at the common end of these

tubes. The device is used by pointing it at the object of the pickup.

Its limitations are pretty much the same as the parabolic microphones.

One of the things that I have mentioned from time to time and which

runs through all of this business of eavesdropping is the tape recorder.

Now, tape recorders are available to everyone for use in the home, for

commercial use, for broadcast use. And they run from $100 up to

thousands of dollars in price. If you were going to eavesdrop someone, the very cheapest variety might do perfectly well for you. There

is nothing about the more expensive ones that makes them better

adapted to eavesdropping than the cheaper ones.

Tape recorders also come miniaturized in size. For example, they

come fitted to a briefcase. I have here a bulletin from the Amplifier

Corporation of America which shows a tape recorder fitted in a briefcase, and this can be used, for example, by the businessman going on a

trip. He can take this along with him and go to a conference and

either record a conference directly at the location, or he can return to

his hotel room and dictate his thoughts and impressions of what went

on at the conference.

This is sold, in other words, for standard use, but it could be available to an eavesdropper, too.

This particular company that makes this is only one of a number

that I have heard of.

Senator HRUSKA. And what would its size be ?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. This particular one is a standard-sized briefcase.

I do not know whether you can see the picture on the sheet or not

from there, but it is a standard-sized briefcase in this particular

instance.

There is another type of recorder which is called the Miniphone recorder. It is a wire recorder rather than a tape recorder, and it is

adaptable to a carrying case that mounts on the person. It is battery

operated, and will record up to 5 hours constantly. It was developed

in West Germany and sold in this country.

The other day, when I was contacted for this hearing, I told the committee counsel that I would like to mention just briefly the

fact that there are a number of other eavesdropping devices which

:have found special application. I do not know to what extent they
WIRETAPPING 19

have been used for private eavesdropping, but I know that some of

these devices have been used by plant security personnel to accomplish special things. And these are video devices, rather than audio

devices. That is, they survey the person visually. One of these

things is a closed-circuit television camera, by means of which one can

have a small camera no bigger than a woman's purse, let us say,

mounted in a wall and connected by wires to a monitor in some other

place. And this has been used by security people, for example, in

suspected cases of theft, where it is wished to maintain surveillance

on a particular place where theft has occurred but where it is impractical to hide a man. Instead, one of these cameras is hidden and

then at another place, perhaps a hundred feet away, there is a monitor

where that spot can be watched remotely.

And then there is another thing which has been used in this area.

That is the standard camera which is electrically tripped. You may

either have a trip wire which mechanically sets off the shutter on a

camera, or you may electrically trip a camera by fitting it up with a

solenoid on the shutter and having some sort of electrical device at a

given point that will actuate the solenoid. So if you wished to survey

a person automatically and not be there yourself, you could plant one

of these cameras, have it electrically tripped, and the camera would

take pictures for you.

Senator HRUSKA. Could that be done, Professor Schwartz, with

what is commonly referred to as the magic eye, that opens grocery

store doors?

Mr. ScHwAwrz. That could be used, but that is not the only device.

Senator HRUSKA. But that is one.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. It could be used. I just bring this out to show

the field of electronics could be used or misused over a very wide range

in the field of eavesdropping and can be adapted to visual surveillance

as well as listening in on a person.

That concludes pretty much what I had planned to talk about. I

have a number of other things available if any of the committee cares

to look at them. I am open to questioning now.

Senator IIRIISKA. Thank you, Professor Schwartz. I am sure that,

while many of the things you have mentioned have come to the attention to the committee staff, have come to the members of the committee in some form or other, this does give us a good record in one

place of the variety of things and the various aspects of the problems,

which will be very useful as we go along in the hearings.

Mr. Slayman, have you any questions of Professor Schwartz

Mr. SLAY1VIAN. I have just 1 or 2 more, Mr. Chairman.

You mentioned use of closed-circuit television cameras for visual

inspection, Professor Schwartz. Could this closed circuit television

apparatus be coupled with infrared equipment to take pictures or

watch people in the dark?

Mr. ScHwARTz. Well, the usual camera that is used for closed-circuit

television is called the Vidicon camera. It is a camera that was developed, oh, perhaps 9 or 10 years ago, that operates under a very

wide range of lighting conditions. I believe it does not usually give

as clear a picture as the commercial television studio camera, but its

versatility makes it very useful in this particular application.

Whether or not that camera is sensitive to infrared, I do not know.

But I can say this much about the infrared story, that photographers

know that infrared film is available, so a conventional camera could be
20 WIRETAPPING

used for this application to take pictures in near darkness. The technique of doing this is usually to have some source of infrared light or

infrared rays at the location where the picture is to be taken. And

these infrared rays are not very apparent to the person who is being

photographed. Infrared film is also sensitive to visual light, so that

it could work under both darkness and light conditions.

Senator HRITSKA. Well, thank you, Professor Schwartz, for your

time and for your disclosures here and your information.

Mr. Slayman, who is our next witness?

Mr. SLAYMAN. Mr. Chairman, the next witness is the Honorable

Thomas McBride, attorney general of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, whose office is in Harrisburg, Pa.

Mr. McBride, will you have a seat, please. I will be through in a

moment, with an introductory statement.

We had planned, Mr. Chairman, in orderly procedure, to hear witnesses on techniques of wiretapping and eavesdropping on the first

day of hearings, today. Then, on the second day, Thursday, May

22, we would hear witnesses on the current status of the law and the

background of the law covering wiretapping and other eavesdropping. So, the first day on techniques, the second day on the law. And

in subsequent hearings we intend to get into who is doing wiretapping

and eavesdropping, and for what purposes; and then, ultimately,

who favors what kind of legislation, whether it is a strengthening

of present statutes or modifying of present statutes. But Mr. McBride has a constitutional duty in Pennsylvania to be at a board

meeting on Thursday, and I did not see when we would be able to

schedule him again, so I took a little liberty with the program and

asked him if he could come today. He also has with him Mr. Ivan

Levin, a special agent in the department of justice for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who can serve Mr. McBride as a technical

adviser.

Senator HRETSKA. That is fine, Mr. Levin. Will you come forward

and sit at the table here with Mr. McBride and be available for such

observations as you might want to make and answer such questions

as may be put to you.

I would like to say, Mr. Slayman, you are to be commended for

exercising the discretion you have, because we want to accommodate

the witnesses who come before us and we would like to avoid inconveniencing them as much as possible.

Mr. SLAYMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HRITSKA. Mr. McBride, have you a formal statement for us?

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS McBRIDE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, HARRISBURG, PA.

Mr. McBRiDE. I do not. I had hoped that perhaps any contribution I might make would be in the nature of answering questions;

but if it is expected that I should make a general statement, of course,

I can.

Mr. Levin's presence here is due to the fact that, for the Department

of Justice of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, he made a special

study of wiretapping before the present Pennsylvania statute was

enacted, to ascertain how wiretapping was done. And he is prepared

to state, for the committee's information, along perhaps some of the
WIRETAPPING 21

lines that Professor Schwartz has talked about, what he knows about

actual methods used. And if you would just as leave hear him first

or have me go into the general views I entertain about the law, I

have no preference since we would be going back together. If the

chairman wanted to hear Mr. Levin now on the technical aspects of

wiretapping, as to which I am ill equipped, indeed, perhaps you would

get a followup of the general testimony given by Mr. Schwartz.

Senator HRITSKA. Mr. McBride, the Chair feels that perhaps, without in any way reflecting upon any contribution which Mr. Levin

could make, it would be at this point somewhat repetitive; and we

would like to take advantage of your presence here to go into the

legal aspects at least at this time. Now, there may come, during the

time of your testimony here, an occasion when we can make inquiry

of Mr. Levin.

Now, you have mentioned statute law in the State of Pennsylvania

on this subject. Can we start out by having you describe for us that

statute law and its scope and in general its provisions?

Mr. McBRmE. Yes. In Pennsylvania many people were of the

belief that wiretapping was being indiscriminately employed, both

by law enforcement officers without supervision by their highest superiors and also by private detective agencies at the instance of private

persons. And so the various legal associations like the Philadelphia,

Bar Association became interested in the problems in its overall accommodation to the whole problem of law enforcement.

We of the bar felt that society enacts 2 kinds of laws, one covering

the prohibited conduct of its citizens and the other covering the conduct of society itself, and that the decent accommodation of those 2

rights was the main effort of the civilized society, so that the utmost

freedom would be preserved along with what is generally looked upon

as the specific area of law enforcement.

We look, however, at both civil rights and prevention and punishment of crime as law-enforcement problems, because the first eight

amendments to the Constitution are law and they must be enforced,

too. So in the accommodation of those specific guaranties which are

law enforcement problems and the punishment and detection of crime,

a law enforcement problem there should be a proper balance. So

we went into a general study of the subject to determine whether

there should be an outright ban on wiretapping such as contained in

section 605 of the Federal Communications Act, or whether there

should be a provisional ban subject to the right of law enforcement

officers to tap wires after having previously gotten a warrant issued

by a judge of a court of record.

We were faced with the problem, first, of the private wiretapper.

I think everybody agreed that that was unequivocally bad. When it

came to law enforcement, however, there was a general area of agreement that, if adequate safeguards could be imposed to protect private

rights, it would be desirable that law enforcement officers be left unfettered. As a result, however, of the varying views both of law

enforcement officers, of members of the State legislature and others,

it was determined, at least primarily by the Philadelphia Bar Association ; that is, by a majority, that/here are no adequate standards

that can be adopted that will at the same time accommodate the demands of law enforcement officers and the rights of private parties/

So they recommended to the general assembly that there be an out-
22 WIRETAPPING

right ban of wiretapping, with only one provision, so that in a case

such as kidnaping, if permission was granted by one party to a conversation—that is, the subscriber to one of the two lines being used—

then there should be freedom to listen in on that private line. That

was based upon the theory that even in private conversation, when

one man talks to another, he runs the risk that his confidence will be

betrayed. And we thought that it was not unreasonable that each

person to a telephone conversation run the risk also that that conversation be betrayed.

Senator HRUSKA. Let me understand you, Mr. Attorney General.

There was an outright and absolute ban, with one provision. When

you say "provision, do you mean "exception"?

Mr. MCBRIDE. Exception. That is, there was an outright ban upon

everybody including law enforcement officers, except that with the

permission of one party, the law enforcement officers could listen in

on a conversation.

Senator HRUSKA. In what type of case?

Mr. MCBRIDE. In any type of case.

Senator HRUSKA. In any type of case upon which the law enrol. uvment officers are working?

Mr. MCBRIDE. Yes.

Senator HRUSKA. Now, you mentioned kidnaping, but that was

just by way of illustration and not by way of limitation?

Mr. MCBRIDE. No, it was not by way of limitation. But I am still

in a sort of preparatory statement, because that was not the law that

was ultimately enacted. We thought, however, that was a reasonable

accommodation of the rights of individuals and the requirements of the

law enforcement officers. And when that was proposed, it came to

the House of Representatives in Pennsylvania and they amended it to

provide for a right on the part of law enforcement officers to wiretap

if previous authority was gotten from a court of record by analogy

to a search and seizure warrant.

The Senate went along with the absolute ban and went even further

by striking out the exception that we had written in, and made it similar to what the Federal law was interpreted to be by Judge Learned

Hand in the Polakoff case and in others, so that even the permission of

one party was not sufficient, there had to be permission of both.

The thing went to a conference between the House and Senate and

then the bill was ultimately enacted. I think it was Senate bill 97 of

the sessions of 1957, and it is presently the law of Pennsylvania and

that is, there is an outright ban on all wiretapping, making it a criminal

offense to either tap or divulge—either the tapping or the divulging is

a criminal offense—and preventing the introduction into evidence of

the results of any such wiretap, and providing, as I say, no exception on

behalf of law enforcement officers as to any type of crime. So that in

Pennsylvania today there is an absolute ban on all kinds of wiretapping by anybody and providing for criminal sanctions.

Senator HRUSKA. And what are in general those criminal sanctions?

What penalties are involved?

Mr. MCBRIDE. I think it is 1-year imprisonment. It is, however,

in Senate bill 97 and I do not have a copy with me.

Senator HRUSKA. You might furnish it for the record, if you will.
WIRETAPPING 23

Mr. MCBRIDE. Yes, sir, I will be delighted to. It also, of course,

provides for a rather substantial fine in addition.

(The act, S. 97, to which Mr. McBride referred is reprinted below:)

AN ACT To define and prohibit unauthorized interception divulgence or use of telephone

and telegraph communications providing criminal penalties and civil damages, including

attorneys' fees for the violation thereof and limiting the admissibility of evidence

The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby enacts

as follows:

SECTION. 1. No person shall intercept a communication by telephone or telegraph without permission of the parties to such communication. No person

shall install or employ any device for overhearing or recording communications

passing through a telephone or telegraph line with intent to intercept a communication in violation of this act. No person shall divulge or use the contents

or purport of a communication intercepted in volation of this act. Whoever

wilfully violates or aids, abets, or procures a violation of this act is guilty of

a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by imprisonment of not more than one

year or by fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) or both and shall

be liable to any person whose communication is unlawfully intercepted or

divulged for treble the amount of any damage resulting from such unlawful

interception, divulgence, or use but in no event less than one hundred dollars

($100) and a reasonable attorney's fee; the term "person" includes natural

persons, business associations, partnerships, corporations, or other legal entities

and persons acting or purporting to act for or in behalf of any government or

subdivision thereof, whether Federal, States, or local. The term "divulge"

includes divulgence to a fellow employe or official in government or private

enterprise or in a judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding. Except as proof in a suit or prosecution for violation of this act no evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful interception shall be admissable in any such

proceeding. Nothing in this act shall be interpreted to apply to acts done by

personnel of any telephone or telegraph carrier in the performance of their duties

in connection with the construction, maintenance, or operation of a telephone or

telegraph system.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect in thirty days.

We certify that this bill has passed the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Chief Clerk, Senate.

President pro tempore, Senate.

Speaker, House of Representatives.

Approved—The day of A D 1957.

Governor.

Now, the whole question brought up by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's relationship to the Federal Government is that we have in

effect in Pennsylvania a wiretapping statute which would stand on its

own, unless amended by a subsequent legislature, of course, whether or

not there was any national act which changed the present section 605

of the Federal Communications Act.

Senator HRUSKA. I take it by that your comment just made goes into

the field of preemption, is that what you have in mind?

Mr. MCBRIDE. NO, I don't think that the question of preemption—

well, if you carved out an area whereby Federal officials were permitted to wiretap upon court approval, I have no doubt that the supremacy clause would protect them against any State prosecution. So

long as, however, they are forbidden to wiretap and also forbidden by

the State, I think that Federal officials would be liable to prosecution

in the State as well as in the Federal Government.

Senator HRUSKA. Well, I guess I do not follow you through that
24 WIRETAPPING

statement. Would you mind either repeating it or elaborating on it?

I did not quite get it.

Mr. MCBRIDE. Yes. The preemption doctrine you are talking about

is one most recently enunciated by the Supreme Court in the Mesarosh

case. That is, when the Federal Government enters the field, and particularly in a field like telephone conversations which may be both

interstate and intrastate, and the person who listens on the wire is

unable to distinguish as between whether or not they are interstate or

intrastate, if the Federal Government says that in enforcement of Federal law Federal officials could tap wires, I personally entertain no

doubt that under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, then the State law would be inoperative to proscribe the conduct

of such Federal officials. It does not specifically apply to Federal

officials or State officials. I see no difficulty in so applying it now,

because the Federal statute proscribes such conduct, too. Perhaps,

however, this is an area where it is thought that section 605 was preempted, the same way as the Congress has preempted the field in, let

us say, subversion. I think though that both statutes could be

presently enforced.

Senator HRUSKA. Of course, some of us would feel that there probably was not preemption in the subversion cases, but there was a very

high official body who thought that Congress did so.

Mr. MCBRIDE. Yes, in a case which, I may say, came up from

Pennsylvania.

Mr. SLAYMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question on this point

at this time?

Senator HRITSKA. Surely.

Mr. SLAYMAN. At the present moment, under the status of the State

law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, are you telling the committee that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania can prosecute criminally anyone wiretapping within the Commonwealth, whether that

person is a private detective, a business competitor, a misinformed

local police official or Federal official?

Mr. MCBRIDE. Yes.

Mr. SLAYMAN. That would include—I'm just asking this question

to pinpoint your answer—that would include this question: Could

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania today prosecute criminally under

its State laws an FBI agent who is tapping wires in Pennsylvania?

Mr. MCBRIDE. Under the law as drawn, it could. The only remaining question would be the constitutional one of whether it is operative

against Federal officers when the Congress of the United States, under

pection 605, said that it is a criminal offense to both tap and divulge.

/The Treasury Department and the FCC say under the Federal statute

it is a criminal offense to either tap or divulge. The Department of

Justice has ruled that for its purposes, its interpretation of the law, it

is a Federal criminal offense only to tap and divulge and they define

divulgence as not including the divulgence among the various employees of the justice Department itself/ This question was recently

raised but not decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in

an opinion by the Chief Justice in Rathbun v. United States, with a

dissent from Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Douglas.

Mr. SLAYMAN. Well, Mr. Attorney General, what is the Federal

court decision that applies to this Department of Justice position?

What does Rathbun hold in that regard?
WIRETAPPING 25

Mr. MCBRIDE. Rathbun—on the question of tapping and divulgence?

Mr. SLAYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCBRIDE. Rathbun specifically reverses decision on that point;

and all other Supreme Court of the United States decisions. Bepanti

and others, have specifically reserved decision on that point. /It remains undecided as a matter of Federal law whether the Department

of Justice of the United States is correct in its interpretation or noV

Senator HRUSKA. Now, when was this law passed in Pennsylvania,

Mr. McBride?

Mr. MCBRIDE. In 1957, about May.

Senator HRUSKA. Has enough time elapsed to get any results in

its operation?

Mr. MCBRIDE. Well, there have been no prosecutions under it because it is very difficult to get evidence that it has been violated. But

I can say from personal knowledge that there is a feeling among public officials other than prosecuting 

i

officials, a feeling of greater freedom. They feel, now that there s a law proscribing the tapping of

wires, that they can talk more freely over a telephone than they could

before.

Senator HRUSKA. Will that same feeling be shared by those who

are engaged in illegitimate operations or illegal operations?

Mr. MCBRIDE. You mean the underworld?

Senator HRUSKA. Yes.

Mr. MCBRIDE. I suppose it would be.

Senator HRIJSKA. Is that good or bad? It is good for the underworld but bad for the others.

Mr. MCBRIDE. No, I think you return to the age-old question of

accommodating yourself to the rights of society to have its criminal

laws upheld and the rights of individuals not to be unreasonably interfered with. When you get to the area of crime, I think that wiretapping is effective. I am not one of those who believe that wiretapping does not catch criminals. /The only question is whether the

use of wiretapping is so essential in enforcement of law that it overbalances the greater good, undoubtedly, that comes from the feeling

of freedom that people have that they are not being listened to. It

must be remembered, and it is not just raising a bete noire to say,

that indiscriminate wiretapping in the totalitarian countries is practically their hallmark; and the attempt to eradicate that was thought

desirable, apparently, both by the Congress of the United States in

enacting the Federal Communications Act and by the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania in enacting its statute/

Senator HRUSKA. What are your personal views, if you care to

state them, with reference to the question that you have just raised?

Mr. McBRIDE/My personal view is that wiretapping should be

banned, that there isn't sufficient good done by it to overcome the harm

that is done by that feeling of loss of freedom of decent people. It

is sometimes said, "If you are not committing a crime, why do you

care who listens on your telephone?" Well, I know any number of

decent people who do not want anybody listening on their telephone.

I do not think the families of any of us want people listening on their

telephones. If you could tap only a conversation between somebody

you know is committing a crime, I think the feeling of men like me

would be entirely different. But the line itself is tapped; and the in-
26 WIRETAPPING

nocent, the guilty, the kind of people who have been shown up—there

have been clergymen, lawyers and many others whose names and statements were published in the public press as a result of some wiretapping that was done in my own native city. And I think that those

people should have been allowed to talk without having their conversations listened to by anybody/

Senator HRUSKA. And you do not feel, apparently, then, that any

precautions taken by way of getting a court order on the analogy of

search and seizure would be sufficient protection, a sufficient deterrent

to indiscriminate use of wiretapping and harmful wiretapping such

as that to which you refer.

Mr. MCBRIDE. Well, now, I have two views about that—and they

are not contradictory ones. I am informed, although I have no personal knowledge about it, but there have been many things written,

about the New York system that indicates that the number of actual

applications to the court for permission to wiretap is infinitesimal

when compared to the number of wiretaps that are done without court

order. Now, that is the first view. I do not think tapping would be

restricted to just getting court orders.

Senator HRUSKA. In other wordst the gate being open on a provisional basis would in actual practice open it much wider than the

scope of the court orders themselves.

Mr. MCBRIDE. I think it would necessarily do that. But then, secondly, let's address ourselves to the question of court orders. They

seek to draw an analogy between wiretapping and search and seizure.

Now, in search and seizure, we are all familiar with the fact that, when

you want a search warrant, you go to a judicial officer, you take an

affidavit, you tell him what the facts are. And then he passes judicially upon the question of whether or not there is probable cause to issue

the warrant of search and seizure. To that extent, both wiretapping

and search and seizure would be the same. And as to that, I see no

particular difference between them.

After that, however, in search and seizure cases, the warrant must

be served in a limited time. It is served upon a designated place. If

anything is seized, if the person is there from whom it is seized, a

copy of what is seized is left with him. If he is not there, a copy

is left at the premises. In any event, he is notified that a warrant has

been issued against him. If he feels a sense of outrage, he then goes

to the judicial authority who issued that warrant and whose name appears upon it; and he complains that there is no probable cause for

believing him to be guilty of any offense. And if he wishes it, he

has a test as to whether or not probable cause actually existed for the

issuance of this warrant. And so search and seizure, even though secret, even though up until the time the warrant is served the only two

people who know about it are the judge and the man who is going to

do the search, that secrecy can be put up with because, to let the world

know that next Monday I am going to search that man's home will result in nothing.

Senator HRUSKA. It does have criminal facilities and it does have

immediate tests which can be applied.

Mr. MCBRIDE. Yes. Now, compare that to wiretapping. You get

a warrant to tap a man's telephone and you tap it, let's say, 30 days,

60 days. He does not know that it is being tapped. He is given no

notice. When the tap ends, there is no judicial authority to whom he
WIRETAPPING 27

can go and complain, "You have no right to tap my wire as against

someone else's." If nothing is found, the wiretap information is

still there for the police, possibly the court, and anyone else in the

police department to know about it. But he has no right whatever,

by analogy to the search and seizure provisions, to go before a court

and to establish in an adversary way that there was no right to issue

it in the first place. And then usually the warrant procedures would

require that, if after the end of 30 or 60 days they wished to renew it

for a further period, they bring to the judge what they have and he

reads it over to see whether or not they should continue. Well, now,

we know as a practical matter that no judge on earth can do his judicial work and read 60 days of wiretapping to decide whether or not it

should stay on for a longer period.

Senator HRUSKA. Well, that is fine.

Now, Mr. McBride, have you heard of any complaints on the part

of law enforcement officials in Pennsylvania that this law has impeded

their work in any way, or has been a detriment to them rather than

otherwise?

Mr. MCBRIDE. Yes, I have. The law enforcement officials, the police, feel that any attempt to stifle wiretapping impedes them in the

detection and punishment of crime. And I think to some extent that

complaint is justified.

Senator HRUSKA. But that has to be balanced, as you say, against

thee other considerations of larger public policy and the impact on

society as a whole. Is that your position?

Mr. .MCBRIDE. Yes. Their suggestion is they should be able to tap

wires in gambling, in so-called numbers cases, any kind of a case that

the policeman decides that he wants to tap. They do not restrict their

position to kidnaping or treason or something like that. They put

it "anything that endangers life or the public welfare or public safety."

Now, every criminal statute on the books is detrimental to the public

welfare. If it weren't detrimental to the public welfare, it would not

be on the books, it would not be a proper criminal statute. So I think

it is true that the police departments do protest against it, and to an

extent their complaint may be justified.

Senator HRI7SKA. How wide are these protests? How widely do

you find them voiced on the part of law enforcement officers?

Mr. MCBRIDE. I find them most widely voiced in the city of Philadelphia, where protests have been made against the Pennsylvania

statute and they say that it has interfered directly with their work.

One of the protests was from a—not even from a policeman, but

after there had been a raid upon a home in Philadelphia and it turned

out to be the home of two elderly ladies who could not possibly ever be

suspected of being in the gambling racket. This high public official

said that, had they been permitted to wiretap, they would not have

made this mistake had they been able to listen to these elderly ladies,

they would have known that they were decent people.

And then also the claim is made that juvenile delinquency is on the

increase because they cannot tap wires. It is obvious that they do not

go around tapping juvenile wires.

Senator HRUSKA. Now, Mr. McBride, in that connection, to your

knowledge has there been any increase in the crime rate in Pennsylvaniaresulting, from the passage of this law?

Mr. MCBRIDE. I cannot say one way or the other. There has been

a definite increase in crime in Pennsylvania since the law passed. I
28 WIRETAPPING

understand that there has been a definite increase in crime in New York and in other States throughout the Union. And I doubt very much that the increase elsewhere at least can be imputed to the Penn- sylvania Antiwiretapping Act.

Senator HRITSKA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. McBride. This

has been very enlightening and it will serve as a good start for the series of witnesses which we will have day after tomorrow along this

same line.

Mr. Slayman, have you any other questions of Mr. McBride?

Mr. SLAYMAN. No, sir.

Senator HIMSKA. Thank you again, Mr. McBride and you, too, Mr.

Levin. We are happy to have had you here. We are sorry we could

not call upon you for your contribution in this, but perhaps we will

have further occasion to do so.

Mr. SLAYMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask your permission to print

separately, as an appendix I to these hearings, material which I have

listed here [indicating], Background Materials on Wiretapping,

Eavesdropping, and the Bill of Rights, which would be printed now

and be immediately available for use in the committee.

Senator HRUSKA. And later on appended to the hearing?

Mr. SLAYMAN. Yes. If we can print this immediately, we would

not have to wait for this transcript to be corrected.

Senator HRUSKA. Very well, the request is granted and you may

proceed accordingly.

(The table of contents of the Background Materials on Wiretapping, Eavesdropping, and the Bill of Rights follows:)
WIRETAPPING 29

BACKGROUND MATERIALS ON WIRETAPPING, EAVESDROPPING, AND THE

BILL OF RIGHTS

CONTENTS

Part I. Bill of Rights.

Part II. Statutes:

Section A. Federal statutes:

1. Section 501, title 47, United States Code.

2. Section 605, title 47, United States Code.

Section B. State statutes:

1. Memorandum on State wiretapping laws.

Part III. Court decisions:

Section A. Compilation of court decisions relating to wiretapping.

Section B. List of court decisions dealing with section 605, title 47, United

States Code.

Section C. Text of opinions in Supreme Court cases dealing with wiretapping:

1. Olmstead v. United States.

2. Nardone v. United States.

3. Nardone v. United States.

4. Weiss v. United States.

5. Goldstein v. United States.

6. Goldman v. United States.

7. On Lee v. United States.

8. Schwartz v. State of Teras.

9. Benanti v. United States.

10. Rathbun v. United States.

Section D. Text of opinions in selected group of related Supreme Court

cases:

1. Boyd v. United States.

2. Weeks v. United States.

3. Wolfe v. Colorado.

4. Rochin v. California.

5. Irvine v. California.

6. Rea v. United States.

Part IV. Foreign law:

Section A. Great Britain and the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Section B. Various European countries.

Section C. Hispanic countries.

Section D. Japan.

Part V. Bibliography:

Section A. Books.

Section B. Articles in legal periodicals.

Senator IIRusKA. The meeting stands in recess. We will have

furtiqq• proceedings on Thursday, May 22, at the set time.

(Whereupon, at 12: 30 p. m., the hearing recessed until Thursday,

May 22, 1958.)

X