Wiretap
Wiretapping is the act of intercepting telephone or other communications by a third party. In many cases, neither party to the communication is aware that a third party is monitoring it. In 1967 the United States Supreme Court held that wiretapping (or “intercepting communications”) requires a warrant in Katz v. United States.[1] In 1968, Congress enacted a procedure for granting wiretap warrants for criminal investigations.[2] In 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) created a special court for issuing wiretap warrants in national security cases.[3]
Wiretapping in the US
As a general rule, wiretapping is illegal under the Fourth Amendment unless it is authorized by a warrant. A law enforcement agency must convince a judge or magistrate that there is probable cause to justify the warrant. In 1994, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), established distinctions between substantive content of conversations and the "metadata" regarding the persons and phone numbers involved for those communications. CALEA required telephone companies to be able to install more effective wiretaps. In 2004, federal law enforcement agencies sought to expand CALEA to cover Voice over IP (VoIP) communications as well as conventional voice communications. In August 2005, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled that “broadband-service providers and interconnected VoIP providers fall within CALEA’s scope. Currently, instant messaging, web boards and site visits are not included in CALEA’s jurisdiction.[4]
Impact of Pervasive Domestic Wiretapping of Law-Abiding Citizens
There is a 21st century trend, as revealed by Edward Snowden and others, towards pervasive monitoring by both the Federal government and business like Google via "wiretap" of law-abiding citizen's internet, smartphone and smart television (Amazon FireTV, Roku and AppleTV) activity:
“The progress of science in furnishing the government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wiretapping. Ways may some day be developed by which the government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions. 'That places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer' was said by James Otis of much lesser intrusions than these. 1 To Lord Camden a far slighter intrusion seemed 'subversive of all the comforts of society.' Can it be that the Constitution affords no protection against such invasions of individual security?”
~ Louis Brandeis (1856-1941), United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).
See Also
- Edward J. Snowden revelations of unconstitutional domestic spying on law-abiding American citizens
- The Perpetual War on Drugs, War on Terror and the Police state
- NSA and other Intelligence agency mass surveillance: PRISM, Wiretap - Roving wiretap
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
- Prism-break.org - Opt out of global data surveillance programs like PRISM, ECHELON, XKeyscore and Tempora.
- Right to Privacy
- Cryptography and data encryption
- Common law privacy rights
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
- Privacy Act of 1974
References
- ↑ FACTS AND CASE SUMMARY: KATZ V. UNITED STATES.
- ↑ Federal Statutes: Relevant in the Information Sharing Environment (ISE). DHS/Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the DHS/Privacy Office in cooperation with the DOJ, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
- ↑ Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
- ↑ The Instant Expert Guide to CALEA. VoIP News.