-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Court Puts Crimp in Big Brother Monitoring Date: 18 Aug 2000 19:47:47 -0000 From: "Oscar " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 00:19:12 -0500 (CDT) Michael Eisenscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: August 16, 2000 Court Curbs Agents' Ability to Monitor Cellular Phones -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- F.C.C. Must Rethink a Much-Disputed Rule By STEPHEN LABATON FORUM Can Privacy be Protected Online? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 -- A federal appeals court today struck down parts of a government order that broadly expanded the ability of law enforcement agents to monitor cell phone conversations of criminal suspects. The outcome was a partial victory for the telephone industry and privacy groups that had challenged the order, and was a setback for the government, which must now consider revising its rules for electronic surveillance of wireless communications. The decision, by a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, did give the authorities some of what they had sought: it upheld a provision that enables federal agents to determine the general location of a cell phone user by identifying which cellular antenna is being used by the phone company to transmit the beginning and the end of a call under surveillance. On the other hand, the opinion not only set out statutory parameters on electronic surveillance but pointed to important constitutional ones as well. At various points in the decision, the court suggested that agents who wanted a warrant to monitor the location of suspects through their cell phones must meet a high burden of proof. The government order under challenge before the court was issued last August by the Federal Communications Commission in an effort to make it easier for law enforcement authorities to monitor conversations on cell phones. The agency acted after years of fruitless negotiations by the government, industry and privacy groups to implement the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. That legislation required telephone companies and equipment makers to build their networks in a way that would enable law enforcement to intercept certain kinds of communications. But it also imposed constraints in the name of privacy and ordered regulators to adopt standards in a manner least costly to industry. The decision today struck down a provision that required companies to install equipment to detect telephone touch tones once a call is placed, enabling agents to monitor the use of cell phones to make banking transactions, get voice-mail messages or send paging messages. It also voided comparable provisions that required the companies to install equipment to enable agents to monitor conference calls, call forwarding, call waiting and messages left on cell phones. The appeal on which the court acted was filed last year by a coalition of telephone industry groups that complained that the government order would be too costly to implement and privacy rights organizations that said it violated the constitutional protections of cell phone users. The issue posed by that appeal, United States Telecom Association v. Federal Communications Commission, was whether the agency, in imposing the order, had exceeded its authority or failed to consider privacy concerns and the financial costs of the new standards adequately. The court's decision, written by Judge David S. Tatel and joined by Judges Douglas H. Ginsburg and A. Raymond Randolph, found that in four of six provisions at issue, the F.C.C. had failed to explain the basis for its order properly. The judges also found that the commission had failed to examine whether the standards were too costly. In addition, the court said the agency failed to consider possible privacy implications when it required that companies install equipment to monitor touch tones. Justice Department lawyers had defended the provision on the ground that after a telephone call is made, some callers use "dial-around" services like 1-800-CALL-ATT to then charge long-distance calls, a procedure that can be used to circumvent surveillance. But the court accepted the concerns of the privacy groups that an effect of the provision would be to permit agents to also monitor activities like banking and paging by cell phone. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A partial victory for the phone industry and privacy groups. Lawyers on both sides of the case said they had not decided whether they would appeal. If there is no appeal, then the F.C.C. must begin new proceedings to reconsider and possibly rewrite its rules. In the interim, government lawyers said, law enforcement agencies will be constrained in their ability to monitor certain kinds of communications through cell phones. The decision comes amid growing concern by some lawmakers and privacy groups that the government has been increasing its electronic surveillance. On the other side, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has expressed concerns that keeping up with advances in technology is becoming increasingly difficult. In recent months, that debate has focused on a new computer application called Carnivore that the F.B.I. says it uses to sift through millions of e-mail messages in order to monitor communications of criminal suspects. Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company *** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Feel free to distribute widely but PLEASE acknowledge the source. *** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://monkeyfist.com/ http://www.magicnet.net/~jza/news.html ---------- Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://home.netscape.com/webmail/ <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
