March 18, 2004 Letter to Chairman Powell, Senators Warner and Allen
and Representative Moran
and Representative Moran
PO Box 8208
Alexandria, VA 22306-8208
March 18, 2004
The Honorable Michael K. Powell
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554
The Honorable John William Warner
United States Senate
225 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4601
The Honorable George F. Allen
United States Senate
204 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4604
The Honorable James P. Moran
U.S House of Representatives
2239 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4608
As a concerned individual, I am writing to express my opposition to the Department of Justice’s request that all new Internet communication services be required to have built-in wiretapping access.
This requirement is NOT necessary. Longstanding laws already require Internet Service Providers and Internet telephone companies to allow the FBI to conduct surveillance. The FBI is going far beyond these existing powers by trying to force the industry to actually build its systems around government eavesdropping. It is the equivalent of the government requiring all new homes be built with a peephole for law enforcement to look through.
I am very concerned that this requirement represents an end-run around Congress. Lawmakers, after extensive deliberations, set up boundaries for how the FBI can collect information between sources like phone companies and data sources like e-mail. The FBI’s aggressive and expansive reading of the law would bypass the legislative process to alter that careful balance.
I understand that by requiring a master key to our personal communications, the government is creating the very real potential for hackers and thieves – or even rogue government agents – to access our personal communications. Past efforts to provide this sort of “backdoor” access have not been successful and only created a rich opportunity for hackers.
Once again, I urge you to oppose the dangerous suggestion of the Department of Justice that our new Internet communication technologies should have built-in wiretapping.
Such domestic spying measures are the tactics of totalitarian regimes, not those of a free nation. I didn’t give up six years of my life to the Marine Corps fighting tyranny only to see it introduced piece by piece in my nation.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter.
Sincerely,
James Landrith
April 20, 2004
Mr. James Landrith
PO Box 8208
Alexandria, Virginia 22306-8208
Dear Mr. Landrith:
Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts regarding efforts to require Internet based communications services be wire-tap capable.
As you may know, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), at the request of the Department of Justice, is currently exploring the possibility of expanding the government’s ability to monitor online traffic. Concerns have been raised that while the government has the capability, under a court issued warrant, to wiretap landline based communications, many of the newer communications systems, especially those employing the Internet, such as Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP), are not designed to allow wiretapping. This characteristic of many Internet communications systems may unwittingly be allowing terrorists to communicate and disseminate plans secretly worldwide without fear of being caught.
I understand and share many of your same concerns that the basic freedoms our country was founded upon should not be eroded for the sake of greater security. The Internet is also perhaps the most powerful communication/information medium in our society, and its evolution has changed the world while at the same time been a tremendous boon to our economy. Your thoughtful correspondence on this serious topic is much appreciated. Be assured I will keep your comments in mind as Congress reviews this issue or should legislation affecting Internet privacy come before the full House in the coming year.
Please feel free to visit my website at http://www.house.gov/moran which contains information on topics that may be of interest to you. Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue.
Yours truly,
James P. Moran
JPM/int3
May 6, 2004
Mr. James Landrith
P.O. Box 8208
Alexandria, Virginia 22306-8208
Dear Mr. Landrith:
Thank you contacting me to share your views about the Department of Justice’s ability to wiretap Internet communications. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
Recently, the Department of Justice petitioned the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to consider treating Internet broadband and online telephone providers the same as traditional telephone companies, which by law must provide law enforcement agencies with court orders reasonable access for wiretaps and other monitoring of voice communications. To date, the FCC has not made a final decision on this issue.
In a related matter, updating our laws to correspond with new technology is one of the goals of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act). Some key provisions of this law include: updated electronic surveillance ability for law enforcement; increased border security on the northern border, money laundering measures to help break up terrorist financial networks; enhanced information sharing;
increased criminal penalties for terrorism; allowing the Attorney General to detain suspected alien terrorists without a formal charge for up to seven days, and requiring the Attorney General to report to Congress on the feasibility of enhancing the integrated automated fingerprint identification system.
I was pleased to be one of 98 Senators to vote in support of this important legislation. The Patriot Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 357-66.
Before voting in support of the Patriot Act, I carefully weighed a number of factors. On the one hand, many of the provisions of the Patriot Act were sorely needed. Prior to the passage of the Patriot Act, some of our laws had not been updated since the creation of modern technology such as the intemet and cell phones. A measured, targeted enhancement in law enforcement’s powers was long overdue.
On the other hand, any changes in the law must not infringe upon the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. This great document has served as the foundation of this country, and our democracy, for over 200 years. Therefore, it is imperative that any legislation passed to combat domestic terrorism does not trespass on the individual rights guaranteed in our Constitution – rights that make America the greatest nation in the world.
I certainly agree with those who state that we should not disregard the Constitution in the fight against terrorism. However, as a former Assistant United States Attorney and as United States Senator who has examined the extensive public record that the Senate has compiled through hearings on the Patriot Act, I must respectfully disagree with those that claim that the act ought to be repealed.
In my view, the Patriot Act strikes the right balance by providing law enforcement with new and updated tools to fight terrorism while fitting these measures well within the bounds of the Constitution.
It is notable that in the many months that have followed since September 11, 2001, the American homeland has not been subjected to another terrorist attack. The Patriot Act has been helpful in this regard. At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, our own U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia agreed, stating, “The USA PATRIOT Act is an integral part of our efforts to identify terrorists and disrupt their activities in the United States.”
As a member of the Senate, I believe very strongly that the Senate’s Judiciary Committee should be vigilant in exercising its oversight jurisdiction over the U.S. Department of Justice in its application of the Patriot Act. In my view, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held a number of excellent hearings aimed at highlighting the facts on the implementation of the Patriot Act. These hearings have helped clear up some of the confusion surrounding the complex areas of law that are touched by the Patriot Act. Several pieces of legislation have been introduced which would provide certain changes to the Patriot Act, and the Committee will continue to examine these proposals.
While certainly the USA PATRIOT Act has played an integral part in combating terrorism, we must not forget others. Thomas Jefferson once said, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” I commend our men and women of the armed forces, the men and women of law enforcement all across America, and the vigilance of every American for all working together both here and abroad to protect our country’s freedom.
Please be assured that should legislation relating to the matters mentioned in your letter come before the full Senate, I will be certain to keep your views in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely,
John Warner
JW/jsf