FBI wants $$$ to tap phones - ratio, 1 per 100, simultaneously. CNN=source.

Nov 2 08:03 UTC 1995

just heard on CNN that the FBI *wants* telephone-tap authorization
for 1 out of 100 telephones in the US.   
  
                        HUH!????
  
Gimme farking break!!
  
CAn you spell creeping dictatorship as well as I can? Oh, the tapping
is simultaneous, in case you wondered. 

response 2 of 53:

Nov 2 12:29 UTC 1995

The articles I've read say the guy is working on PGP Phone even as we speak.

response 4 of 53:

Nov 2 18:46 UTC 1995

Even asking for the permission to do it scares me. The FBI has absoluteyl NO
right to do it. What can i say? It should be apparently a tragedy to everyone
who hears about it.

response 6 of 53:

Nov 3 04:38 UTC 1995

Are you sure it was 1 in 100? I thought CNN's story said 1 in 1,000. Not that
it matters, it's still unnecessary. Ooops, I shouldn't have typed that over
a phone line.

response 8 of 53:

Nov 3 04:49 UTC 1995

Somethng about an electonic Ruby Ridge comes to mind ....... The ACLU, which
I support with the same vigor as the NRA, (and as a conservative, too) figgers
that one thousand eight hundred conversations will be monitored whilst
looking for the *one* they want. Fuck that, stronger language to follow ...

response 10 of 53:

Nov 3 11:51 UTC 1995

Actually, what they want to do is require the telephone companies to build
this capacity into their networks.  (And, yes, the number is 1 in 100). This,
of course, means that the cost of doing that will be passed on to consumers.
So, in effect, we will have to pay to have our own phones tapped.

response 12 of 53:

Nov 3 17:14 UTC 1995

what "we" are doing now ... involves a lot more grief, several more
people, and a hell of a lot more witneses. 
  
danr, the tapping capacity built int the switches is already in effect.
Now they want carte blanche to use it -vgee, the weapon is loaded,
let's pull the trigger ...
 
Actaully it's a whole lot more like a shotgun, sted of a single
targeted round.  I prefer not to get pellet-splatter on my line
or in my ear - nor in the ear of the "state's police."
  
If i were to be involved ina "continuing criminal enterprise," there 
would be PLENTY of opportunities for tapping ...specifically, focused,
directed, and all the other Grexers w3would not get splattered
with phone taps .. all those innocent conversations that you NOW
consider to be private. 
  
I am not involved in any such enterprise but if YOU are I don't wnat
MY innocent conversations tapped when the "state's police" could 
focus and direct and specifically tap *just* your line, and for
court-ordered cause.
  
<< i think adbarr was typing with tounge-in-cheek .. i hope>>

response 14 of 53:

Nov 3 18:58 UTC 1995

Seems really out there to me. I have been thinking of what use this system
must have. Idea 1, Search of geographic areas for a caller. Idea 2, 
the ability to search many lines for a carrier, a way around a swithhook
(a phone called to call another number.) Perhaps a Nethead could give
us an explination of other uses. Otherwise I suspect that the FBI is 
afraid of putting a 'id-trace-number' anyplace in the data stream.
Cool system from the darkside. I wonder if moderate republicans will vote
for it.

response 16 of 53:

Nov 4 13:35 UTC 1995

re #11, #12. As I understand it, the phone company and the FBIdo have the
ability to tap phones now, but not as many as 1 in 100.  So, they're
requesting additional tapping capacity.

response 18 of 53:

Nov 4 17:16 UTC 1995

Here's what I don't understand. Every wiretap will still require a court 
order, despite what tsty posted in #12 about the FBU requesting 
carte blanche to use it. I don't think our court system can produce
that many authorizations.  This is a cruel joke.

I'm with Rob -- it sounds like pork in disguise. I hope this request
is rejected quickly and decisively.

response 20 of 53:

Nov 5 05:48 UTC 1995

Yeah, Arnold, I know that is a possibility. 
But I feel that stating that the FBI is violating the law and tapping phones
illegally (at least without some darn good evidence) is an extreme position.

It is going to be a lot easier for them to conduct illegal wiretaps with this
in place, but I am not saying that they are planning to do that. Are you?

TS was saying (I think) that this bill would give them the ability to tap 
whatever they want without any check (i.e. Carte Blanche) and that is not 
the case. The FBI would be breaking the law to tap without a court order.

response 22 of 53:

Nov 5 20:36 UTC 1995

OK then, we pretty much agree. Perhaps I transferred too much of the
'Carte Blanche' comment into your responses.

I am willing to believe that such power is abused. I have seen too much
evidence of it myself. I am dead set against this bill.

response 24 of 53:

Nov 5 23:33 UTC 1995

  To have evidentiary value, they would presumably record all
conversations on all tapped phone lines.  When they listen to it
isn't important.  I'd think that if they bothered to get a court
order to tap a line, they would at some point listen to all the
conversations it was used for.
 
  I've heard rumors that the NSA records all international calls,
uses voice recognition to create text transcripts, and then searches
these for key words (such as listing all transcripts with the phrases
"blow up" and "airplane"), picking those calls for further analysis.
It sounds paranoid and unlikely to me, due to the technology required.
But eventually, the technology to do this will exist.