From: pp000234@pop3.interramp.com Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 19:08:43 DST I received the first position paper in the mail today from my representative, Tom Sawyer, D-Ohio. I have included his letter and an excerpt from a letter outlining the one page summary of the FBI's proof written by Don Edwards and Patrick Leahy. The letter explicitely states that it may be distributed publicly. It's a little long, if anyone wants a copy, I'd rather email than post it here. By the way, does anyone know if the EFF or CPSR sites contain a copy of this letter? If not, I can forward a copy to them. The one page summary is an "informal survey", solicited by the FBI from police agencies across the country. I hope the EFF wins its FOIA lawsuit against the FBI. At least I received a response. I would encourage anyone desiring to know their elected officials position to write, call, fax, or email a request for their position paper in writing. Not many will refuse such a request so close to the upcoming elections. I'm still waiting for anything from Congressman Fingerhut's office (D-OH), and Senators Glenn and Metzenbaum. I also have the CQ's October 8, 1994 article by Jon Healey outlining the details surrounding the Senate subterfuge last Friday night if anyone is interested. It clearly shows that Senator Metzenbaum and Wallop weren't all that interested in privacy protections, they were more interested in grinding their own political axes and pushing their own pet bills/amendments. Don't kid yourself into believing that Congress really has your best interests in mind. The Congressmen and Senators all have their own pet projects to push and will gladly waffle to sidestep any criticism. Thanks to everyone responding via email...I didn't expect such a response! Rest assured, as I receive the position papers I will post them. They are, after all, public documents ;-) Anyway here's position paper #1: Thomas C. Sawyer 14th District Ohio Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. October 7, 1994 Dear Mr. Heck: Thank you for writing and calling to express your opposition to HR4922, a bill which would assist law enforcement authorities in carrying out court-ordered wiretaps. As you know, this bill passed the House by voice vote on October 5. I understand your apprehensions about any measure which might facilitate illegal intrusions into the lives of private citizens. I share your concerns, and did not object to this bill only because I was satisfied that it did not put personal freedoms at serious risk. As a nation, we have long recognized that law enforcement agencies should have a limited right to conduct wiretaps, with court approval, during an investigation of criminal activity. Clearly, we all have an interest in allowing the gathering of crucial taped evidence against criminals. We trust the courts to protect the privacy of citizens by allowing such listening only when it is warranted. While I appreciate the danger of unauthorized wiretaps, I do not believe that such illegal wiretaps have seriously threatened innocent citizens in the past. Essentially, this bill simply allows investigators to keep pace with rapidly changing technology by maintaining, not expanding, the capacity they have had to conduct court-approved electronic monitoring. In addition, there are several provisions of HR4922 which significantly limit the possibility for police abuse of this power. First, the bill specifically prohibits the government from dictating what technologies must be used to conform communications systems to the bills provisions. It also prohibits the use of any device or method which would reveal the physical location of a cellular or other phone customer. Most importantly, it requires that wiretaps can only be activated by a telecommunications company at its premises, not by police at remote locations. The threat of lawsuits against phone companies should severely limit the possibility for illegal collusion between them and law enforcement agencies. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a new watchdog group concentrating on privacy in the information age, was involved in the negotiations on this bill from the start, and supported its passage. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) declined to participate, and only expressed general concerns at the last minute. I have included an extensive letter to the ACLU from the Subcommittee, who is an unquestioned defender of the need for, and protections in, HR4922. Thank you again for expressing your concern. While I had previously been confident that this legislation was in the best interests of the people I represent, your letter and phone calls prompted my staff and me to make sure individual rights were not in jeopardy. I appreciate your persistence, and I hope that you will continue to contact me on matters of concern to you. Sincerely, (Signed) Thomas C. Sawyer Member of Congress (Handwritten postscript:) Personal thanks for your conscientious opposition to this measure. While we may not agree in conclusion, we share many of the same concerns. We are a better nation for the alertness of voices like yours on issues like those you raise.