Evening star., 1940-06-14
Wire Tapping Absurdities

Wire Tapping Absurdities
The absurd extremes to which the
Federal edict against "interception
and divulgence" of telephone and
other wire or radio messages has
been extended, under court interpre-
tations of the Federal Communica-
tions Acts so-called wire tapping
clause, is we'll exemplified in the
latest of Federal Court decisions on
that controversial subject. The
Federal Circuit Court Of Appeals in
New York City has just issued
ruling which. in effect, makes it
illegal for a businessmans secretary
to listen in on and take notes of an
incoming phone call without consent
of the caller. Some officials here
who have read the decision believe
that strict application of the ruling
would even prevent a man from
telling his wife what some one had
told him over the telephone, unless
permission previously had been
obtained from the person who
phoned.
BY two-to-one decision, the
appellate court upheld a defense
contention in a perjury case that,
under the Federal Communications
Act, consent of both parties to a
telephone conversation must be
obtained before the conversation
may be divulged to third party.
Judge Charles E. Clark, in dissenting
from this view, pointed out that the
decision means that criminals need
only take the precaution to carry on
their plotting by wire to be assured
of new freedom from interfer-
ence by law enforcement authorities
and to be immune from prosecution
on the basis of evidence given by one
of their number who might wish to
turn states evidence Nor can law
abiding citizens, he said, transcribe
and make use of wire messages in
order to protect themselves from
blackmailers or eXtortioniSts. The
plain implication of this conclusion
should be clearly understood. In
effect, the judge was saying that,
under the Interpretation placed on
the Communications Act by the
Supreme Court, the father of kid
naped child could not legally COM
municate to police any information
he might receive in a telephone call
from the kidnaper without obtaining
the latters consent, even though
that information would lead to the
recovery of the child and the appre-
hension Of the criminal. Congress,
of course, intended no such result
in enacting the statute. and if the
courts are going to such fantastic
lengths in interpreting the law, it
is essential that the legislators act
at once to remove any possible statu-
tory basis for the exercise of such
judicial nonsense.
One Of the two judges who signed
the majority opinion explained that
he felt he was bound by the act and
by Supreme Court interpretations to
rule as he did--but he expressed the
hope that the Supreme Court would
disagree with the majority ruling
and approve the attitude of Judge
Clark.
The Supreme Court, in several
recent cases. has held that use Of
evidence obtained directly or indi-
rectly by the tapping of telephone
or telegraph wires is violation Of
the Federal Communications Act.
Under these opinions Attorney Gen.
eral Jackson has issued fiat pro-
hibition on wire-tapping by Federal
Bureau of Investigation agents
even in kidnapping or espionage cases.
He has said he would favor legisla-
tion to permit overlapping in
extremely serious" cases, and Rep
resentative Emanuel Celler of New
York has introduced bill to lift the
ban in national defense investiga-
tions. Congress not only should
approve of wire-tapping or any other
sort of official eavesdropping when
security of the Nation is involved,
but should revise the tapping
clause of the Federal Communica-
tions Act so as to permit interception
of messages sent by kidnapers, extor-
tionists and other public enemies"
Surely spies and saboteurs and
gangsters do not deserve the protec-
tion they are now getting from the
communications law and the court
decisions which have interpreted it.
Engine Research