Pubdate: Sun, 09/05 1999 Source: Tampa Tribune (FL) Copyright: 1999, The Tribune Co. Contact: http://www.tampatrib.com/ Forum: http://tampabayonline.net/interact/welcome.htm Section: Editorial CONGRESS MUST RESTRAIN LAW OFFICERS FROM STILL FURTHER ELECTRONIC SPYING The federal government keeps asking for more power to spy on us. That power would not be unrestricted, but we are told it is necessary so that law enforcement can make sure we are safe. Last year the government attempted to institute a rule that would have required banks to track their customers' transaction patterns, but those attempts brought such a public outcry that the proposal was scrapped. Now the Justice Department has formally asked for the ability to surreptitiously break into our homes to discover the keys to our personal computers' encryption to monitor our private transmissions. And the other day the Federal Communications Commission gave the FBI a present, approving a wish list that would extend the bureau's authority to monitor cellular and digital telephone calls. WITHOUT A DOUBT the government is justified in wanting law enforcement to be able to manipulate the ever-changing technology we live with in order to stop the criminals among us who would take advantage of it. But this need to deter crime and crack cases demands tight controls. The criminals won't be the only ones to suffer if innocent civilians lose their implicit right to privacy. The founders of this republic were well aware that too much power in the hands of government corrupts and endangers our freedom. Yet knowing that there must be a balance between the needs of law enforcement and the people's expectation of privacy in this technological age, Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act in 1994. Congress hoped to preserve the intrusive wiretap capabilities of law enforcement without expanding that power. The parties forced to yield the most at the time - privacy advocates and businesses required to develop surveillance equipment to accommodate police - - accepted what they thought was a responsible compromise. And it seemed then as if law enforcement was on board too. FBI director Louis Freeh said all of the right things when he testified before Congress. But ever since then, the bureau, with the support of the Justice Department, has tried to use the law to expand its snooping power beyond what innocent people and businesses should have to tolerate. ``The Department of Justice and the FBI are on the verge of achieving a long-term goal - the authority to dictate specific surveillance features to the nation's telecommunications systems,'' privacy advocates warned in a message to the Federal Communications Commission last month. The FBI had petitioned the FCC, which is empowered to implement the law, in March 1998, seeking approval of nine additional surveillance procedures, including the ability to track cellular or digital telephone customers from the inception of a call until its conclusion and the capacity to continue monitoring parties on conference calls even after the subject of any wiretap order has hung up. And the other day the FCC approved six points on the nine-point wish list. Law enforcement surveillance had already been enriched by the technological revolution, especially in light of industry's commitment to give access to the content of a suspect's communications. Telephone companies, for example, are obligated to be able to isolate and intercept calls, identify the callers, turn over the information required by a warrant and protect the security of information not authorized by the intercept. The FBI had wanted telephone companies to be able to track the exact location of their cellular customers, but the FCC declined to force them to do that. Still, the new rules represent a further invasion into the private spaces of the American people. In a similar vein, the Justice Department wants the authority to allow federal agents to break into your house and disable the security on your personal computer. In this prelude to the issuance of other search warrants, law enforcement could sneak past access codes and encryption on personal computers. Law enforcement officials have argued that this authority is necessary to do their jobs. ``Police soon may be unable through legal process and with sufficient probable cause to conduct a reasonable and lawful search or seizure, because they cannot gain access to evidence being channeled or stored by criminals, terrorists or spies,'' FBI director Freeh warned Congress two years ago. To that end, the bureau is urging Congress to create a national key escrow system that would give the FBI and others the capability of decoding encryption. We have said before we would not willingly turn over our decoding keys to the government and support passage of the Security and Freedom through Encryption Act that opposes such an expansion of spy power. Furthermore, we can see no difference between doctoring a computer and bugging a telephone. With this new authority, law enforcement would have the power to go through e-mail, financial records and other information stored on the computer. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT protects us from unreasonable search and seizures, and the law has developed so that law enforcement can present its reasons for seeking a search warrant to a judge. For compelling reasons, the judge would approve this intrusion. No government agent should be allowed to enter a private home without a search warrant. Officials from the police or prosecutor's office know which judges are sympathetic to their claims. We find it highly unlikely that a judge would deny a legitimate request to allow surveillance of computer information. Neither law nor tradition requires citizens to take positive action to assist the government in spying on them. When the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee considers these surveillance issues this fall, we hope the members remember that. - --- MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart