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.