October
10, 2000
Re: S. 2448, A Bill To Increase Law Enforcement Electronic
Surveillance, Civil Asset Forfeiture, Prosecution of Juveniles in Federal
Court, and To Make the Use of Encryption A Grounds for Enhancing a Criminal
Penalty
Dear Senator:
We are writing to urge you to oppose S.
2448 because the bill grants new law enforcement authority at the expense of
civil liberties and privacy rights. In contrast to the balanced approach taken
by the House Judiciary Committee when it reported H.R. 5018, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 2000 (H. Rept. 106-932, October 4, 2000), S.
2448, the "Internet Integrity and Critical Infrastructure Act of 2000,"
includes a series of new law enforcement powers without any effort to balance
them with increased privacy protections for electronic and voice
communications. If S. 2448 is adopted, the 106th Congress would have the
dubious distinction of enacting legislation that further threatens privacy of
communications while having done nothing to advance the privacy of such
communications at a time when public concern about privacy is at an all time
high. As a result, we strongly urge you to oppose this legislation.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO S. 2448
This legislation comes before the Senate
during a period of time in which the government has engaged in electronic
surveillance at record levels. While the Department of Justice has often said
that the Internet poses new challenges to law enforcement, in reality, it has
been a boon to governmental surveillance. Last year, state and federal law
enforcement obtained more orders for electronic surveillance than in any
previous year. The number of federal intercept applications almost doubled
between 1989 and 1999, and in 1995 and 1996, for the first time, the federal
government obtained more electronic surveillance orders than all of the states
combined. Each time an electronic surveillance order is executed, nearly 200
persons' communications are intercepted. Precious few are ever indicted, much
less convicted. For the first five-year period for which statistics are
available (1969-73), more than half of the conversations intercepted in law
enforcement electronic surveillance were incriminating conversations. Over the
most recent five year period, approximately four of every five intercepted
conversations was innocent. In each of the last few years, nearly two million
innocent communications have been intercepted in law enforcement electronic
surveillance. This is a tremendous sacrifice of personal privacy. S. 2448
would make this problem worse, and result in the interception of more innocent
conversations in law enforcement electronic surveillance.
We oppose S. 2448 because it would make minor computer hacking crimes a
predicate for a law enforcement wiretap. Under current law, law enforcement
officials can obtain an order authorizing interception of electronic
communications such as e-mail when they are investigating any felony,
including a felony violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030. In contrast, orders
authorizing interception of voice communications are available only for
certain enumerated, usually serious, felonies. 18 U.S.C. 2516. S. 2448 would
add felony computer hacking prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 1030 to that list of
felonies.
Because it does so much damage to privacy, wiretapping should be authorized
only to investigate the most serious crimes. Adding all felony violations of
18 U.S.C. 1030 to the list of wiretap predicates would extend wiretap
surveillance to minor crimes. For example, under the bill, if a teenager who
had done so in the past intentionally and without authorization accessed a
computer connected to the Internet and unintentionally caused damage, law
enforcement could get a court order authorizing a wiretap of his parents'
phone. With past experience as a guide, law enforcement would then eavesdrop
on nearly 2,000 conversations conducted over that line.
It is unnecessary to add 18 U.S.C. 1030 to the list of wiretap predicates.
Such crimes are perpetrated by use of electronic communications, not voice
communications. Electronic communications used in such a felony are already
subject to interception under 18 U.S.C. 2516.
When the White House proposed adding Section 1030 to the list of wiretap
predicates, it did so preserve law enforcement access to electronic
communications such as e-mail, not because law enforcement needed access to
voice communications to investigate conduct prohibited by Section 1030. This
was necessary because the White House proposal would have limited interception
of electronic communications to investigation of those crimes listed among the
wiretap predicates. The Administration made this clear in the "Proposed
Legislative History" of the legislation that it transmitted with its proposed
electronic surveillance legislation. With respect to this provision, the White
House legislation had a balance that is absent from S. 2448. At a minimum, S.
2448 should be amended to provide that the wiretap predicates in 18 U.S.C.
2516(1) apply to electronic as well as to voice communications.
Moreover, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2000 reported by the
House Judiciary Committee as H.R. 5018 includes many of the changes that H.R.
2448 would make to 18 U.S.C. 1030, but balances them against other privacy
enhancements. H.R. 5018 would raise the extremely low standard for pen
registers and trap and trace devices (which record the numbers dialed from and
to a telephone), require probable cause for disclosure of location information
generated in connection with use of a cellular telephone, subject illegal
surveillance of electronic communications to the statutory exclusionary rule,
extend the warrant requirement to more e-mail in storage, and require some
reporting of the disclosure of the contents of electronic communications in
storage. S. 2448 should be put into balance by including these measures to
increase the privacy of electronic and voice communications. Because it
expands electronic surveillance and omits any measures to increase the privacy
of communications, we urge you to oppose S. 2448.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO S. 2448
Apart from our concern that S. 2448
expands electronic surveillance and does not include any measures to enhance
privacy, we urge you to oppose the bill for a number of other reasons:
Section 3 (c)(5): Terminating Financial Assistance
We oppose this
provision because it would allow a federal judge to permanently bar a person
from receiving federal financial assistance for their education. Although not
strictly speaking a civil liberties issue, we oppose the policy of withholding
federal financial assistance from persons convicted of crimes. During the
105th Session, Congress passed a bill preventing anyone convicted of a drug
crime from receiving federal financial educational assistance. One conviction
disqualified a person for one year, two convictions disqualified a person for
two years of loans and three or more convictions permanently disqualified a
person from federal financial assistance. Persons who successfully completed
drug treatment could have loans reinstated.
The provision in S. 2448 is both narrower and broader than the one for drug
crimes. The provision does not require a judge to terminate financial
assistance as the drug provision did, however, there are no limitations placed
on the power of the judge to terminate aid. This provision authorizes the
judge to permanently disqualify any felony offender convicted of a computer
hacking offense from ever receiving federal financial assistance.
Although individuals do not have the "right" to a post-secondary education,
nor the "right" to federal financial assistance, this provision would
disproportionately impact low-income people. For some persons, the loss of
federal financial loans would virtually guarantee that the person could not
obtain a secondary education. Wealthier people would not be impacted in this
way. So, the impact of the punishment would not be the same for all people.
Additionally, education is the best way to encourage rehabilitation, so
eliminating a person's chance of getting an education will not encourage
rehabilitation. At the very least, we recommend Congress insert a clause that
would enable a person to have their financial assistance reinstated dependent
on successful completion of the period of probation.
Section 3 - (d)(1) - Expanding Jurisdiction Outside the United
States
We oppose this provision because it would reach conduct with no
nexus to the United States. This provision expands the definition of
"protected computer" to include computers located outside of the United
States. Nothing within the definition of "protected computer" requires that
any transaction be within or affecting the United States. The definition of a
"protected computer" could include a computer that "is used in foreign
commerce and located outside of the United States." The United States does not
have a legitimate interest in computer crime that does not impact the United
States, nor does it have the jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute crimes
that occur in other countries - without some jurisdictional tie to the United
States. The definition should be tightened up to read, "including computers
located outside of the United States if they are involved in activity that
impacts upon the United States."
Section (d)(10) - Definition of "Conviction"
We oppose expanding the
definition of conviction for purposes of sentencing enhancements to include a
juvenile adjudication. Juvenile adjudications are not criminal convictions.
Children are not entitled to the same due process rights as are adults in
criminal cases. It is unfair to use the results from the informal children's
proceedings as a "first conviction" for purposes of imposing the severe
sanctions available under 18 U.S.C. 1030. Doing so may result in young people
being incarcerated for extraordinarily long periods of time.
Section 4(b) - Civil Asset Forfeiture
The ACLU opposes expansions in
the government's use of civil asset forfeiture. This section would expand such
use. The Fifth Amendment provides that before the government can take a
person's property the person is entitled to full and meaningful due process
protections. Current civil forfeiture law does not provide adequate
protections against unfair and arbitrary government takings.
Section 6 - Increasing Federal Jurisdiction Over Juveniles
The ACLU
opposes expanding federal jurisdiction over juvenile delinquency cases. This
section adds offenses under Section 1030 to the small list of juvenile
offenses that can be heard in federal court. The ACLU opposes using the
federal courts for juvenile cases because there is no federal juvenile justice
system and children whose cases are adjudicated in federal courts do not have
access to the services available in state juvenile courts. State juvenile
court systems provide social workers, juvenile probation officers and separate
juvenile facilities for children who need to be institutionalized. These
services increase the likelihood that children will get the type of attention
they need to reform their lives. The ACLU also supports de-federalizing crime
policy. Under our constitutional system, criminal cases should be handled by
the states. This provision increases the jurisdiction of federal court at a
time when we should be decreasing their jurisdiction. For many of these
reasons, the House Judiciary Committee deleted a similar provision from H.R.
5818 on a voice vote.
Section 10(c) - Using Encryption as a Sentencing Enhancement
The ACLU
believes it is unwise to single out the use of encryption for enhanced
punishment. The Sentencing Guidelines already provide for increased punishment
when criminals obstruct or impede the administration of justice (§3C1.1).
Similarly, the theft Guideline already contains an enhancement for conduct
that involved more than minimal planning (§2B1.1(b)(4)(A)), as do the
Guidelines for similar crimes. Use of encryption or any other sophisticated
means to conceal a crime would likely trigger these existing enhancements.
Rather than merely clarifying that use of encryption constitutes an
obstruction of justice within the existing Sentencing Guidelines, this section
directs the Sentencing Commission to add to the Guidelines a new
encryption-specific enhancement. The provision is objectionable because it
stigmatizes the use of encryption, suggesting that it is somehow worse to use
this method to conceal a crime than to use other methods. Such a policy
reflects the now-discredited view that encryption is dangerous and must be
contained. To be sure, criminals who use encryption should be punished, but
they are no more culpable than burglars who use gloves or white-collar
criminals who use a shredding machine to destroy documentary evidence.
CONCLUSION
Because S. 2448 fails to strike the proper balance between
law enforcement and privacy, would expand the interception of innocent
communications at the expense of privacy, result in the prosecution of
juveniles in federal court, and make use of encryption a grounds for enhancing
a criminal penalty, we urge you to oppose S. 2448.
Sincerely,
Laura W. Murphy
Director
Rachel
King
Legislative Counsel
Gregory T. Nojeim
Legislative
Counsel
[106th Congress Issues]
[Voters' Guide] [Congress Overview] [How to Use this
Section]
Copyright 1999,
The American Civil Liberties Union