🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov7.145606.1684@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>, denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
> But perhaps the more important point is that they could not do it 
> because it is illegal under Title 18 to tap without an order.  I 
> really don't see how some gov't agency could embark on massive 
> surveillance without someone finding out and throwing the books at 
> them.

Sigh, Title 18 also has the ever popular "national security interest"
exemption.  Even the notification required under the law may be "postponed."

Also don't forget that we're not talking about just trusting the FBI not
to return to its Hoover days, but every state and local judge and law
enforcement officer.  Most of the news reports in the last four years
of illegal wiretapping by law enforcement have involved local and state
police.

The other facter is telephone switching equipment is no longer owned only
by the telephone company.  The telephone company may be a stickler for
court orders, but places like hotels and landlords are more cooperative.
There was a case in St. Louis of one local police department stopping by
hotels and motels in their juridiction every night and picking up a copy
of the hotels' records of their guests (no court order ever shown).


Here's an extract from the USC (a bit dated, since I don't have the 1992
version, but it should be substantially the same)


Title 18 -- Crimes and Criminal Procedure
 Chapter 119 -- Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and
      Interception of Oral Communications

[...]

Section 2510. Definitions

[...]

(7) "Investigative or law enforcement officer" means any officer of the
United States or political subdivision thereof, who is empowered by law to
conduct investigations of or to make arrests for offenses enumerated
in this chapter, and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or
participated in the prosecution of such offenses;

[...]

(8) "Judge of competent jurisdiction" means --
   (a) a judge of a United States district court or a United States court
   of appeals;
    and
   (b) a judge of any court of general criminal jurisdiction of a State who
   is authorized by a statute of that State to enter orders authorizing
   interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications;

[...]

Section 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic
      communications prohibited

[...]

(2)(a)(ii) Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic
communication service, their officers, employees, and agents, landlords,
custodians, or other persons, are authorized to provide information,
facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to
intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic
surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or
agents landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided
with --
  (A) a court order directing such assistance signed by the authorizing
  judge,
     or
  (B) a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518(7)
  of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no
  warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements
  have been met, and that the specified assistance is required,

setting forth the period of time during which the provision of the information,
facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and specifying the the
information, facilities, or technical assistance required.  [...]



 Section 2518. Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic
      communications

[...]

(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any investigative
or law enforcement office, specially designated by the Attorney General, the
Deputy Attorney General, the Associated Attorney General, or by the principal
prosecuting attorney of any State or subdivision thereof acting pursuant to
a statute of that State, who reasonably determines that --

 (a) an emergency situation exists that involves --
   (i) immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person,
   (ii) conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest,
      or,
   (iii) conspiratorial activities  characteristic of organized crime,

  that requires a wire, oral, or electronic communication to be intercepted
  before an order authorizing such interception can, with due diligence, be
  obtained, and

  (b) there are grounds upon which an order could be entered under this
  chapter to authorize such interception,

may intercept such wire, oral, or electronic communication if an application
for an order approving the interception is made in accordance with this
section within forty-eight hours after the interception has occurred, or
begins to occur.  In the absence of an order, such interception shall
immediately terminate when the communication sought is obtained, or when the
application for the order is denied, whichever is earlier.  In the event
such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the
interception is terminated without an order having been issued, the contents
of any wire, oral, or electronic communication shall be treated as being
obtained in violation of this chapter, and an inventory shall be served
as provided for in subsection [8](d) of this section on the person named
in the application.

[...]

(8)(d) Within a resonable time but not later than ninety days after the
filing of an application for an order of approval under section 2518(7)(b)
which is denied or the termination of the period of an order or extensions
thereof, the issuing or denying judge shall cause to be served, on the the
persons named in the order or the application, and such other parties to
intercepted communications as the judge may determent in his discretion
that is in the interest of justice, and inventory which shall include
notice of --
  (1) the fact of the entry of the order or the application;
  (2) the date of the entry and the period of authorized, approved, or
disapproved interception, or the denial of the application; and
  (3) the fact that during the period wire, oral, or electronic communications
were or were not intercepted.

The judge, upon the filing of a motion, may in his discretion make available
to such person or his counsel for inspection such portions of the intercepted
communications, applications and orders as the judge determines to be in the
interest of justice.  On an ex parte showing of good cause to a judge of
competent jurisdiction the serving of the inventory required by this subsection
may be postponed.

-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100