131 24396 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS September 19, 1985 MEMORIAL HONORS FALLEN Eugene W., Seese, Robert L., Sharlock, communications. The situation we face VETERANS Robert O., Shipman, Donovan T., Simone, today was clearly foreseen by Justice Bran­ Frank J., and Swaney, John F. Tamilitis, Norman, Tilley, William H., deis in 1928 when he said: HON. JOSEPH M. GAYDOS Toomey, William, Vinciquerra, Silvio R., Time works changes, brings into existence OF PENNSYLVANIA Wilson, John M., and Wissinger, Roy V. new conditions and purposes. Therefore, a IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES principle to be vital must be capable of KOREA wider application than the mischief which Thursday, September 19, 1985 Connelly, Charles K., Early, Lawrence, gave it birth. . . Mr. GAYDOS. Mr. Speaker, on Septem­ McDonough, Jerry, and Rudge, Frederick A. The progress of science in furnishing the ber 7, 1985, a war memorial was dedicated VIETNAM government with means of espionage is not to honor the memory of veterans from Abraham, James, Greeley, Dennis A., and likely to stop with wiretapping. Ways may Swissvale, PA, who died in defense of our Horvatii, William F. some day be developed by which the govern­ Nation during World War II, Korea, and- ment, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and Vietnam. ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION by which it will be enabled to expose to a The unveiling of the monument, in­ PRIVACY ACT OF 1985 jury the most intimate occurrences of the scribed with the names of those who fell in home. those conflicts, climaxed a 5-year effort on The makers of our Constitution under­ the part of many individuals and groups to HON. ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER took to secure conditions favorable to the erect a permanent reminder of the price OF WISCONSIN pursuit of happiness. They recognized the this community of 11,500 people paid to IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES significance of man's spiritual nature, of his preserve America, its ideals and principles. Thursday, September 19, 1985 feelings and of this intellect . . . They con­ It would require far too much space to ferred as against the government the right list all who contributed to the memorial or Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Speaker, when to be let alone—the most comprehensive of Congress passed the wiretap law1 in 1968, rights and the right most valued by civilized who participated in the dedication ceremo­ 3 ny. But, I would be remiss if I did not men­ there was a clear consensus that telephone men. calls should be private. Earlier Congresses tion the individual who conceived the WHAT IS AT STAKE project, worked unstintingly to bring it to had reached that same consensus regarding mail and telegrams. Without legislation addressing the prob­ completion and who was singled out by the lems of electronic communications privacy, But in the almost 20 years since Congress community for a special award—Mr. Wil­ emerging industries may be stifled. For ex­ last addressed the issue of privacy of com­ liam Davies, himself a Korean veteran. ample, recent court decisions concerning munications in a comprehensive fashion, Mr. Speaker, I ask the names of the the technologies of communication and cellular and cordless telephones leave a se­ fallen heroes from Swissvale be published interception have changed dramatically. rious question whether calls made over those systems are truly private. Similarly in the RECORD for they deserve to be re­ Today we have large-scale electronic mail membered—by their community, their operations, cellular and cordless tele­ the current law with respect to the inter­ country, and the Congress of the United phones, paging devices, miniaturized trans­ ception of digitized information over a States. mitters for radio surveillance, light-weight common carrier telephone line is unclear. HONORED ONCE AS FALLEN WARRIORS, DEEP compact television cameras for video sur­ This type of uncertainty may unnecessarily IN OUR MEMORIES, NEVER TO BE FORGOTTEN veillance, and a dazzling array of digitized discourage potential customers from using WORLD WAR II information networks which were little such systems. More importantly this ambi­ Alesse, John E., Ayres., Gordon W., more than concepts two decades ago. guity may encourage unauthorized users to Balogh, Godfrey S., Bentz, Joseph J., Bled- These new modes of communication have obtain access to communications to which nick, Leonard W., Boyer, Henry, Brown, outstripped the legal protection provided they are not party. Jack W., and Brown, Robert. In addition to the commercial disloca­ Callender, Jack, Catanzano, John F., under statutory definitions bound by old technologies. The unfortunate result is that tions which may occur if we do not act to Christie, Matthew J., Cobner, Robert J., protect the privacy of our citizens, we may Cohen, Charles G., Conley, Raymond H., the same technologies that hold such prom­ Cooke, John F., Creevy, Edward J., Davis, ise for the future also enhance the risk that see the gradual erosion of a precious right. Charles W., Davis, Evan, DeCesare, Thomas, our communications will be intercepted by Already the very same communication be­ Dolezal, Eugene, and Dumbar, Eugene F. either private parties or the Government.2 tween two persons is subject to widely dis­ Evans, William H., Eyler, Clarence R., Virtually every day the press reports on the parate legal treatment depending on wheth­ Feehrer, Maurice. Fetzer, Charles A.L., Fin­ unauthorized interception of electronic er the message was carried by regular mail, egan, John P., Fioretto, Thomas S., Floss, communications ranging from electronic electronic mail, an analog phone line, a cel­ George W., M.D., Fugitt, Howard F., Garo, lular phone or some other 'form of elec­ William H., Gaydos, Edmund J., Gerich, mail and cellular telephones to data trans­ George E., Grana, Mario M., and Glunt, missions between computers. The commu­ tronic communication system. This tech­ John R. nications industry is sufficiently concerned nology-dependent legal approach does not Huggins, James T., Hooper, John, Hosper, about this issue to have begun the process adequately protect personal communica­ Stephen, Isenberg, Robert T., Isles, Harry of seeking protective legislation. This bill tions; rather, it imperfectly affords legal T., Isles, Peter J., Jeremias, Albert M., John­ is, in large part, a response to these legiti­ protection to communications carried by son, Charles W., Jones, Thomas L., and mate business concerns. some industries. Nor does this crazy quilt Joyce, Richard J. of laws reflect the centrality of American's Kann, William G., Kaplan, Donald E., Congress needs to act to ensure that the new technological equivalents of telephone privacy concerns. As recent polls clearly Kapral, Andrew, Kitchen, Keith D., Klein, show, Americans care about privacy inter­ Maurice, Lane, Andrew L., Levens, Edward calls, telegrams and mail are afforded the 4 J., Levens, Kenneth, Lehman, Michael E., same protection provided to conventional ests. As one commentator put it: Liles, James S., Locke, Byron K., Loesel, Privacy is not just one possible means William G., Logan, Charles L., Loughead, 1 among others to insure some other value, Thomas, Lowery, Ellis E., and Lyach, John Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and but .. . it is necessarily related to ends and A. Safe Streets Act of 1968. 2 According to a soon to be released study of this relations of the most fundamental sort: re­ Marino, Joseph A., Marino, Leonard A., question by the Office of Technology Assessment. spect, love, friendship and trust. Privacy is Masilon, John F., Mayer, Raymond D., Federal agencies are planning to use or already use not merely a good technique for furthering Meese, Richard C., Morrow, Thomas J., closed circuit TV surveillance (29 agencies), radio Murphy, Edward R., Murray, George M., scanners (20 agencies), cellular telephone intercep­ McBride, John P., McStea, Alexander, tion (6 agencies), tracking devices (15 agencies), pen 3 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 474 registers (14 agencies), and electronic mail intercep­ (1928) (Brandeis, J. dissenting). Netwon, Jack S., Nonemaker, John B., and 4 Nord, John R. tions (6 agencies). This increased use of a variety of According to a 1984 poll, 77 percent of Ameri­ electronic surveillance devices alone is not cause for cans are concerned about technology's threats to Osaja, George S., Pershke, Kenneth H., alarm. There are instances when a particular elec­ their personal privacy. Louis Harris & Associates, Petty, Robert T., Pulsinelli, Joseph F., tronic surveillance technique is necessary to com­ "The Road after 1984." Southern New England Ridley, Richard C., Russell, William, Seger, plete a criminal investigation, as my bill recognizes. Telephone (1984). September 19, 1985 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 24397 these fundamental relations; rather without 5 to obtain access to these records. This re­ SS "CITY OP FLINT:" A HISTORY privacy they are simply inconceivable. quirement, while protecting the Govern­ WHAT CAN BE DONE ment's legitimate law enforcement needs, HON. BEVERLY B. BYRON Today I am introducing, with the rank­ will serve to minimize intrusiveness for ing minority member of my subcommittee, both system users and service providers. OF MARYLAND CARLOS J. MOORHEAD of California, the This provision also assures that users of a IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Electronic Communication Privacy Act of system will have the right to contest alleg­ Thursday, September 19, 1985 1985. This bill is the byproduct of more edly unlawful Government actions. The ap­ Mrs. BYRON. Mr. Speaker, on October 9, than 2 years of effort by the Subcommittee proach taken in the bill is similar to the 1939, not long after the war in Europe on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Adminis­ congressional reaction to the Supreme began, the SS City of Flint, an American tration of Justice, which I Chair. The bill Court decision in United States v. Miller, merchant ship, was seized by the German also has been developed after careful con­ 425 U.S. 435 (1976), when we enacted the warship, Duetchland, for carrying war con­ sultation with the affected industries, civil Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, 12 traband. Mr. Raymond F. Trumpe, a resi­ liberties groups, and the Development of U.S.C. 3401 et seq. dent of Westminster, MD, was serving on Justice. At this point none of these groups the City of Flint at that time and spent 114 Fifth, the interests of law enforcement has endorsed the bill, but each of these days as a captive. Recently, Mr. Trumpe do­ are enhanced by updating the provisions of constituencies has confirmed the need for nated a diary of the incident to the Smith­ Federal law relating to wiretapping and legislation in this area. It is my hope that sonian Institution for the benefit of us all. in the weeks and months ahead the affect­ bugging. Under current law an Assistant The reason for recognizing and recording ed parties will work with the subcommittee Attorney General must personally approve accounts such as these is self-evident. It is in the spirit of cooperation and compro­ each interception application. The bill per­ through gifts such as these that we are able mise to forge a bill which meets this urgent mits an Acting Assistant Attorney General to preserve our history and our heritage, to problem. to approve such applications. The bill also the lasting benefit of our children and SUMMARY OF THE BILL expands the list of crimes for which a tap future Americans. or bug order may be obtained to include There are seven major features of the I would like, therefore, to insert in the the crimes of escape, chop shop operation, RECORD the information which Mr. bill: murder for hire, and violent crimes in aid First, the bill extends the protection Trumpe so generously sent to me about the of racketeering. against interception from voice transmis­ life of the SS City of Flint. The words that sions to virtually all electronic communica­ Sixth, the basic provisions of the Federal follow are an account of the incident as re­ tions. Thus, legal protection will be ex­ wiretapping law are updated to: First, re­ corded by the second officer of the ship. I tended to the digitized portion of telephone quire that the application for a court-or­ would like, finally, to express my deep ap­ calls, the transmission of data over tele­ dered tap or bug disclose to the court the preciation to Mr. Trumpe for bringing this phone lines, the transmission of video investigative objective to be achieved; event to our attention, and for his donation images by microwave, or any other con­ second, the application must indicate the of these materials to the Smithsonian Insti­ ceivable mix of medium and message. The viability of alternative investigative tech­ tution—he is an example for us all. bill also provides several clear exceptions niques; third, authorizes the placement of Voyage 60-155, U.S. Lines II, Voyage II, to the bar on interception so as to leave un­ certain mobile interception devices; fourth, Warren H. Rhoads, Chief Officer. affected communication system designed so authorizes physical entry into the premises Sailed Norfolk, Va., Sept. 25, 1939. that such communication is readily avail­ to install the bug or tap consistent with Arrived New York, N.Y., Sept. 27, 1939. Sailed New York, N.Y., Oct. 3, 1939. able to the public; for example, walkie talk­ Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (1979); ies, police or fire communications systems, Oct. 9, 1939 at 3:30 p.m. sighted German and Fifth, rationalizes the Government's Pocket Battleship "Duetchland" in Lat. N. ship-to-shore radio, ham radio operators or reporting obligations after a tap or bug has Long. W and was ordered to stop. 4:30 p.m. CB operators are not affected by the bill. been obtained. German officers boarded and examined Second, the bill eliminates the distinction cargo manifest and notified us we had war between common carriers and private car­ Seventh, the bill regulates the Govern­ contraband aboard and will take us to Ger­ riers, because they each perform so many ment use of pen registers and tracking de­ many. 6:00 p.m. proceeded northward with of the same functions. The size of many of vices. Pen registers are devices used for re­ German prize crew consisting of 3 officers, 1 the private carriers makes them appropri­ cording which phone numbers have been Petty officer and 14 enlisted men as guards dialed from a particular phone. Tracking equipped with hand grenades and bayo­ ate for inclusion within the protection of netts. They also transferred 38 men to this Federal laws. devices are devices which permit the track­ ship from British ship "Stonegate" which Third, the bill creates criminal and civil ing of the movement of a person or object they had sunk on Oct. 5-Oct. 15. We passed penalties for persons who—without judicial in circumstances where there exists reason­ through numerous icebergs and glaciers, authorization—obtain access to an elec­ able expectation of privacy. Tracking de­ some were in the straits of Denmark. They vices, therefore, include "beepers" and now had painted out American Flags and tronic communication system and obtain names on ships sides. Also life-boats and or alter information. This provision paral­ other nonphone surveillance devices. then named the vessel "Ali". During all this lels that dealing with interception (see first The bill requires the Government to time we were running without a single light paragraph above). It would be inconsistent obtain a court order based upon "reasona­ at night. Oct. 20, 1939 at 6:30 p.m. we an­ to prohibit the interception of digitized in­ ble cause" before it can use a "pen regis­ chored at Tronso, Norway flying the formation while in transit and leave unpro­ ter." This standard resembles current ad­ German "Man of War" flag. After we had tected the accessing of such information taken aboard fresh water we were ordered ministrative practice. Compare United out by Norwegian Navy, after landing crew while it is being stored. This part of the bill States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. assures consistency in this regard. of "S.S. Stonegate" we heaved up anchor 159 (1977)—a title III order is not required and sailed at 4:30 p.m. followed by naval Fourth, the bill protects against the un­ for pen registers—Smith v. Maryland, 442 vessel to see that we left Norwegian water. authorized disclosure of third-party records U.S. 735 (1979)—pen registers not regulated After putting out to sea we headed north­ ward, destination unknown. Oct. 23 at 3:30 being held by an electronic communication by the fourth amendment. The bill requires system. Without such protection the carri­ p.m. we anchored in Murmansk, Russia still that the Government show probable cause flying the "Man of War" flag. Oct. 24 at ers of such messages would be free to dis­ to obtain a court order for a tracking 5:30 p.m. Russian officers came aboard and close records of private communications to device. This showing is consistent with the disarmed German crew and took them the Government without a court order. current law. United States v. Karo, 104 S. ashore telling us we were free and could sail Thus, the bill provides that a governmental as soon as our papers were returned. Oct. 25 entity must obtain a court order under ap­ Ct. 3296 (1984). hoisted signals asking permission for master propriate standards before it is permitted to go ashore. Russian man anchored a stern of us answered our signals and refused to 5 Fried, "privacy," 77 Yale, L. J. 475, 477 (1968). grant permission. Oct. 26—waiting for