From The SPOTLIGHT 10/17/94 Your Privacy Up for Grabs The new "Wiretap Access Bill" before Congress was the subject of quite a bit of congressional testimony at hearings earlier this year. You may remember the bill as the proposed legislation I described in these pages last summer. Yes, it's the alarming "Digital Telephony and Privacy Improvement Act" drafted by the FBI. Amazingly, the 'Wiretap Access Bill" is now in the respective Judiciary Committees of both houses of Congress. In the House of Representatives, the bill number is H.R. 4922. The identical bill is numbered S. 2375 in the Senate. By all indications, it's on a fast track to a vote before the October congressional recess. The Wiretap Access Bill" was proposed by the Clinton adminis- tration's top law enforcers, Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh. These paragons of Clintonite justice have been pushing very hard to make this patently evil thing the law of the land. Director Freeh may have pushed a little too hard, as you'll see. SURVEILLANCE IS PRIVACY The "Wiretap Access Bill" legalizes automatic, remote-controlled, digital wiretapping and room-bugging equipment. This computerized equipment operates on our country's new digital telephone network and it has existed for years. Planning documents for this frightful automated snooping system describe extensive tests of the equipment against unsuspecting Americans--the tests were conducted apparently without warrants or court orders. The "Requirements" documents of the system--leaked from a computer manufacturer and dated 1990--describe a continuous, wide-scale testing program for the equipment. The test involved the blanket surveillance of telephone subscribers in six American cities. What makes the "Wiretap Access Bill" unique--beyond its unbelievable, Gestapo-like content--is that it's the first law I'm aware of that attempts to legitimize totalitarian computer and communications surveillance systems. ABYSMAL BILL The infamous "Privacy Improvement Act" outraged practically everyone who read it. And that was just draft legislation. The law before the congressional judiciary committees is even worse, if that's possible. This stinker now pays $500 million taxpayer dollars to telephone companies--to offset the cost of the new, government-designed computerized equipment designed to eradicates people's privacy. It's clear to computer professionals and informed observers that these systems are already demonstrably in use by America's secret, permanent government. But it's far from clear whether the defeat of the "Wiretap Access Bill"--H.R. 4922, S. 2375--will curtain the deployment and use of this horrible technology. With or without the legal niceties, the devices are already on parts of the telephone network, and it's clear these things are already being used--possibly used extensively. All of which raises an interesting question: How have the "tests" of the surveillance equipment affected government statistics on court ordered surveillance? That's a story in itself. LIES & STATISTICS Winston Churchill was at his quotable best when he talked about numbers. "There are liars," he growled. "There are damned liars. And then there are statisticians." Now it's time to look at the Director of the FBI, his wiretapping statistics, and his sworn congressional testimony and public comments for the "Wiretap Access Bill." Freeh testified extensively (under oath) before congressional com- mittees in support of Clinton's wiretap access bill. He also spoke to just about every newspaper, TV program and power group that would give him room to tout his high-tech snooper system. Unfortunately, Freeh's numbers don't add up. Even if you believe the FBI would actually tell the truth about its domestic surveillance operations, there are serious questions about the sworn testimony the FBI director gave before Congress. Freeh's statements and testimony don't add up. For example, on Feb. 17 he told the Executive Club of Chicago, "Development of technology is moving so rapidly that several hundred court authorized surveillances have already been prevented by new technological impediments." Imagine: Hundreds of spies, terrorists, hate groups and troublemakers--like us--all flouting the feds' fierce efforts to tap the phones and bug homes of the iniquitous. Sounds dangerous, doesn't it? Don't worry. The Republic was much safer a month later, on March 18, when Freeh testified in Congress. "We have instances of 91 cases--this was based on a 1993 study the FBI did with respect to state and local law enforcement . . . " And America was safer on May 16 when he told Newsday, "We've determined about 81 cases around the country where we were unable to execute a court-authorized electronic surveillance order because of lack of access to that particular system--a digital switch, a digital loop, or some blocking technology . . . " Unfortunately, three days later, our country was in serious peril once again, according to Freeh. On May 19, he told the American Law Institute, "Within the last month, the FBI conducted an informal survey of federal and local law enforcement . . . which revealed over 180 instances when law enforcement was precluded from implementing or fully implementing . . . " You know the rest. [Notice how Freeh is careful to avoid saying "wiretapping" - He says "electronic surveillance." That's continuous eavesdropping-- through telephones, perhaps?] FBI FIBS Of course, what's really peculiar about Freeh's numbers is his pervious congressional testimony on wiretaps. He announced that there were less than 1,000 court-approved wiretaps nationwide. That's roughly the same number every FBI director has cited since J. Edgar Hoover was conning Congress in the 1960s. So, if you believe Freeh's "Wiretap Access Bill" numbers, his FBI tried to increase domestic surveillance by 20 percent in the month of May alone. (Remember what Churchill said about statisticians?) More likely you'll conclude the "FBI" might appropriately be renamed "Fib," based on cooked numbers served up to Congress. It's now a matter of record that Hoover had his agents run tens of thousands of illegal bugs on Congress, the executive branch, the courts, journalists and just plain folks. In fact, the Washington, D.C. telephone company had to run a heavy-duty trunk cable into a disused building to support Hoover's total surveillance of Congress. When it was discovered in the mid-70s, the cable still carried thousands of congressional telephone calls. Freeh's numbers got the FBI sued--some computer patriots want to know where the FBI's fast changing numbers come from and they sued to get it when the FBI wouldn't produce Freeh's "informal studies." Will Freeh's numbers get Clinton the votes he needs to pass the horrible "Wiretap Access Bill" (H.R. 4922 and S. 2375)? Let's see that they don't. You can call the office of Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, at (202) 2256565--or fax him at (202) 225-1584. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has no fax, but can be called at (202) 224-4242.