[42899] in Cypherpunks
Re: Telephone switch capacity -Reply
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brad Dolan)
Sun Nov 5 00:50:11 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 00:39:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Brad Dolan <bdolan@use.usit.net>
To: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Cc: llurch@networking.stanford.edu, cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <v02120d02acc1d4859dfc@[192.0.2.1]>
On Sat, 4 Nov 1995, Lucky Green wrote:
> At 18:43 11/3/95, Rich Graves wrote:
> >[about the FBI supposedly wanting the ability to tap 1% of all phones in
> >the US simultaneously]
>
> [...]
> >Of course the FBI doesn't have the staff to listen to all these lines, and
> >they need an individual court order to authorize each individual
> >interception, so this numbers game is a bit of a joke.
>
> One more time. Despite what you read in the papers, despite what most
> people - even in the legal profession - believe, telephone wiretaps do
> _not_ require a court order. They haven't required a court order in over a
> year. The Digital Telephony Bill, which passed Congress by an overwhelming
> margin, _explicitly_ allows for wiretap authorizations other than a court
> order. The law does not impose any rules for these "other forms of
> authorization".
>
> "The captain signed it off" may suffice.
And Clinton issued an executive order allowing Janet Reno (or her
designees, I believe) to approve wiretaps.
bd
>
>
> -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com>
> PGP encrypted mail preferred.
>
>
>
