New York Times Wiretap Laws: Defining Limits of Privacy Rights By JOHN SCHWARTZ The number of court-approved wiretaps is higher than
ever, but it is probably less than most people think. The most
recent report by the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts says 1,350 full- scale wiretaps were authorized by state
and federal courts in 1999, a 2 percent increase over 1998. Wiretap laws have evolved over decades, with many amendments
to keep up with technology. (More than half of the wiretaps are
now classified as electronic, involving things like pagers, cell
phones or e-mail.) The result is a patchwork of laws. Telephone taps present the highest hurdle of proof: to tap a
suspect's phone, investigators need approval from a high-ranking
Justice Department official and then must present extensive
evidence to a court that there is "probable cause" to believe
that a serious crime — as specified in the law — is being
committed. Intercepting the full content of electronic communications,
as with e- mail, is easier. That can be authorized by "any
attorney for the government," and the court needs only probable
cause to believe that a federal felony is being committed. Getting just a little information from phone calls is easier
still. To capture the numbers dialed by a suspect or used by
those calling him, investigators need to show only that the
information would be relevant to an investigation. (Those orders
are not included in the wiretap statistics.) It is that
relatively low level of proof and oversight, the F.B.I. argues,
that covers Carnivore when it is used to log the authors and
recipients of e- mail. Copyright © 2001. New York Times Company. All rights reserved.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
February 8, 2001
