Basic HTML Version
bill permitting the government to es–
tablish a large-scale computerized
system by which, at the mere touch
of a few buttons and a little cross–
checking with other agencies, gov–
ernment employees would have, for
detailed scrutiny, almost instant ac–
cess to a full picture of your life–
financial data, tax information, med–
ica! and employment histories, edu–
cational records, a family profile, ar–
rest records, political and religious
affiliations, and much, much more?
Would you protest? Unfortunate–
ly, you'd be a bit late. The govern–
ment has had such a capability for a
number of years now. And it's a11
legal.
Chances are good that your per–
sonal life is a11 recorded on tape
somewhere in the government 's com–
puter data banks. An immense accu–
mulation of chillingly complete per–
sonal data-often including the most
intimate details of the private lives of
citizens- is being stored in a vast
network of government computers.
As many national newsmagazines
have reported, every American is the
subject of sorne ten to twenty govern–
ment files. Distressingly, this infor–
mat ion is available not only to gov–
ernment employees conducting rou–
tine government business, but is of–
ten accessible to unauthorized per–
sons outside the government as well.
There is, of course, no malicious
intent on the part of the government
in its data co11ection. Record-keeping
in itself does not constitute a viola–
tion of privacy. It is what is
done
with
that documentation that is impor–
tant. Despite the passage of legisla–
tion such as the Freedom of Informa–
tion Act (as amended in 1974) and
the Privacy Act of 1974, the poten–
tia! for misuse and abuse remains
real. "These laws leave large gaps,"
admits Representative Ba rry M.
Goldwater, Jr. (R-Calif.)
"At sorne point in the not-too-dis–
tant future," warns David F. Lí–
nowes, former head of the now-de–
funct Prívacy Protection Study Com–
mission, "data collection, mainte–
nance and dissemination may no
longer be merely a too! ofsociety, but
will instead become an end in itself–
a force with awesome powers of sur–
vei11ance and control over the lives of
individuals."
Were a dictator ever to take
18
charge of this country, he would have
at his fingertips the technological ca–
pacity to impose
total
and
absolute
tyranny on its citizens. Government
data banks could become the basis
for a system of harassment, surveil–
lance and manipulation.
The Walls Have Earsl
From the advent of Watergate nearly
seven years ago, nationwide public
attention has been drawn again and
again to yet another form of govern–
ment snooping- electronic eaves–
dropping. Disclosures of illicit gov–
ernment-as well as prívate-wire–
tapping, bugging and other forms of
electroníc s urveíll ance have in–
creased in recent years, despite at–
tempts at regulation. No one really
knows how widespread government
electronic surveillance is.
Electronic eavesdropping is de–
fined as the act of electronically in–
tercepting conversations without the
knowledge or consent of the partici–
pants.
lt
includes the clandestine tap–
ing of telephone and other personal
conversatíons by means of wiretap–
ping (rriaking a secret connectíon
with a telephone line), bugging (the
placing of a miniature microphone in
a room, usually necessitating a
break-in or trespass), the use of ultra–
sensitive directional micropbones to
listen to conversations from a dis–
tance, laser beams which píck up dis–
tant conversations and relay them
back to the listener, and dozens of
other sophisticated techniques. Cer–
vantes' famous observation four cen–
turies ago in
Don Quixote
has today
literally come to pass: "Walls
h~ve
ears!"
Present law prohibits electronic
eavesdropping by prívate individuals.
A great deal of illegal prívate elec–
troníc surveillance is nevertheless
regularly carried on. Prívate elec–
tronic espionage has become so wide–
spread that it has spawned a whole
new business- that of electronic
countersurvei11ance or "debugging,"
the detection and removal of illicit
surveillance devices.
Recognizing that taps and bugs
a re a serious assault upon .our pri–
vacy and the fundamental values of
our democracy, a number of states
have enacted electronic eavesdrop–
ping laws. The California Penal
Code, for example, provides fines up
to $2500, prison sentences up to
three years, or both, for any person
who intentionaUy taps or makes any
unauthorized connection with any
telegraph or telephone wire, line,
cable or instrument, including any
interna! telephonic communication
system.
It
also protects against
those who would, intentionally and
without the consent of all parties to
a confidential communication, eaves–
drop upon or record such confiden–
tial communication by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording
device.
Such laws, however, are violated
daily.
When it comes to federal or state
governments, electronic eavesdrop–
ping is legally permissible under cer–
tain circumstances.
If
a federal or
state police agency, for example, de–
sires to use a bug or wiretap in a
domestic criminal or domestic securi–
ty case, it must first obtain a valid
court order. This usually entails con–
vincing a judge that there is probable
cause to believe a crime is being com–
mitted and that the police would be
best aided in solving it by electronic
eavesdropping. In the case of elec–
tronic surveillance requests by feder–
al agencies, the agency must first get
the approval of the Attorney General
before going to court to obtain an
order. No court order is necessary in
cases of national security wiretaps.
The federal agency involved has only
to get the written authorization of
the Attorney General.
Frequently, as we have witnessed
in recent years, all these "formali–
ties" are bypassed completely by po–
lice or federal agents who place taps
and bugs without obtaining the prop–
er court orders or other authoriza–
tion. While evidence seized illegally
is usually not admissible in criminal
proceedings, sueh unconsciona ble
practices nevertheless constitute a
gross violation and betrayal of the
right to privacy, and a potentíal
threat to our democratic system.
Efforts to rigidly define the point
at which a valid objective of law en–
forcement in the detection and docu–
mentation of crime becomes an inva–
sion of privacy have genera11y failed.
Thus the controversy over the use by
government of electronic survei11ance
techniques persists. Meanwhile, elec–
tronic eavesdropping-Jegal and ille-
The
PLAIN TRUTH May 1979