Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Mr. HYDE. Senator, it would depend of course on the exact language of the bill. It could if care were not taken in the drafting interfere with some of our functions, but I do not think it need interfere and I am satisfied that it could be handled in such a way as to not interfere with our operation.

Senator WILEY. You say that it could. Of course, heretofore we have discussed the matter of wiretapping and not being an expert in radio, I wondered when you tap with your instruments the radio whether there is any connection with wire or wiretapping as we speak of it ordinarily?

Mr. HYDE. If the statute talked only in terms of radio it would not, it seems to me, affect wiretapping. On the other hand, if the language dealt only with wiretapping it would not affect radio circuits. I guess that is an obvious observation.

Senator WILEY. Is it not true that these people who are sending out this illegal information use both agencies?

They use the radio and wire both?

Mr. HYDE. I should think, Senator Wiley, that your legislation would necessarily have to take into consideration communications by either method. Otherwise, it would not be complete. I would suggest that it should deal with interception of messages whether transmitted by wire or radio.

Senator WILEY. Senator Welker.

Senator WELKER. Mr. Chairman, in your discussion with the distinguished chairman of this committee you spoke of monitoring. I assume that one of the major portions of your monitoring has to do with, is commonly known as jamming of stations, some stations that might want to interfere with the signal of another?

Mr. HYDE. That is correct.

Senator WELKER. Could you tell me briefly the policy or the reason for the adoption of section 605 ?

Mr. HYDE. Will you excuse me just a minute?
Senator WELKER. Certainly.

Mr. HYDE. I believe that the legislation must have been suggested by the Olmstead case, Olmstead v. United States (277 U. S. 438), which was decided only a few years before the Communications Act of 1934 was enacted. As I recall in that case, the Supreme Court in a 5-to-4 decision gave the opinion that wiretapping was not a violation of constitutional rights.

Senator WELKER. Of course, by virtue of Executive order wiretapping itself is not illegal, but by virtue of section 605 of the Communications Act it is inadmissible in a court of law. That Olmstead case of course was probably the first case. That was decided in the State of Washington, as I recall, in the year 1928.

To make this as brief as possible, Mr. Chairman, I think the distinguished Chairman of this committee and all of us do not believe in the invasion of the right of privacy. Based upon your experience can you see any realistic difference between the tapping of a wire for the purpose of catching a saboteur, or espionage agent, or kidnaper—I think all of us are limiting this to those vicious crimes that might well destroy our Government and the heinous crime of kidnaping—and that of an officer who might bore a hole through that door and listen to you or listen to any private conversation in your home that you might utter?

a

[ocr errors]

a

a

a

Mr. HYDE. It seems to me that there is a tremendous distinction between those two situations.

Senator WELKER. You say there is a tremendous difference?
Mr. HYDE. I think so.
Senator WELKER. How?

Mr. HYDE. Interception for the purpose of protecting the national defense and for the purpose of dealing with conspiracy to overthrow this form of government relates to a matter of such paramount importance that you could sacrifice some personal privacy, it seems to me, under appropriate regulations, but opening the way for law enforcement generally to listen in on private conversations looking to see if perhaps there is a crime being planned or committed without the protection against search and seizure that you usually associate with law enforcement would be very disturbing to me.

Senator WELKER. I appreciate those remarks. I think the Chairman of the committee brought out fully yesterday, but I wanted to get it in the record.

Now, the policy. You hear people who abhor the respective bills that have been submitted to the Chairman of this committee say that it violates a fundamental policy of the invasion of the right of privacy. You, Mr. Chairman, are aware of the fact that some 32 States authorize wiretapping as legal evidence in their own jurisdiction. Do you not think it is a little rare, a little absurd, when a sovereign State of this Nation—and most of us believe in State rights—permits lawenforcement officers to tap a wire and use it as evidence that we are weakening our law enforcement in the Federal Government when we preclude our wiretapping?

Mr. HYDE. I am inclined to agree with you, Senator. I must state in this connection that in the statement I offered for the Commission I expressed the view that we are not experts in law enforcement nor in defense matters and are therefore are not offering any recommendation on that subject, but answering your question as an individual here I think that you have pointed out an inconsistency that deserves some attention.

Senator WELKER. As a basic policy there is very little, if any, difference between recording a telephone conversation illegally or monitoring one and that of wiretapping, is there?

Mr. HYDE. It is the same thing it seems to me.
Senator WELKER. The policy is about the same.
Mr. HYDE. I would say so.

Senator WELKER. There is one question I am sure the Chairman, my distinguished colleague, and I want to have some information on and perhaps you can give it to us. There has been testimony given

. before this committee that a law-enforcement agency using a wiretapping device could distort, could cut out, and could make false the tap as recorded. Do you, Mr. Chairman of the Communications Commission, have any facts that you could tell the committee on that?

Mr. HYDE. Senator, I believe that anyone who has used a wire recorder or a tape recorder, a device which can be had from almost any radio store, knows that some very unusual reproductions, some very unusual rearrangements of spoken words, can be set up as if it were in fact an original recording.

Senator WELKER. That would be malfeasance on the part of the part of the officer.

Mr. HYDE. It certainly would.

Senator WELKER. That would be no different than if we had a twobit detective out in the other room with a hole bored through the wall and who wanted to distort the conversation of the distinguished Chairman, the distinguished Chairman from Wisconsin, and the Senator from Idaho. He could slant and say about anything he wanted to say if he were of that type.

Mr. HYDE. That is just the same, as he can misstate what he has heard if he chooses to misrepresent matters that have come under his observation.

Senator WELKER. I take it we agree then in our fundamental jury system wherein the defendant has the right to go into cross-examination fully. The defendant then, after hearing this false testimony, goes on and testifies. I think we are in agreement that with the American system of jurisprudence and the right of trial by jury the jury then can weigh that. It goes to the weight of the testimony and not to the credibility.

Mr. HYDE. Yes; it is just the same as the oral statement of the person who presumed to repeat what he has heard.

Senator WELKER. Certainly.

Mr. HYDE. The accuracy of his statement is then subject to the test of cross-examination and the judgment of the jury as to how he stands cross-examination.

Senator WELKER. Not only that keyhole peeper and the man who bores the hole, but the officer who desires to be not fair with the defendant, who repeats an oral conversation, an admission against interest, could about slant it in any way he wanted should he desire.

Mr. HYDE. I think there is no way to avoid the possibility that a witness may not be truthful. The only safeguards, I believe, are cross-examination and other sources of information.

Senator WILEY. Will you let me ask a question right there?
Senator WEIKER. Yes.

Senator WILEY. It is a matter that is now being raised in other committees. Senator Welker has brought out very well with you, sir, that if it is a question of a man's intent to slant so-and-so, of course that goes to a man's honesty, or incapability, or his memory, and so forth.

Mr. HYDE. We call it credibility, do we not?

Senator WILEY. Yes. If a person, assuming an honest person, is taking notes as that woman is taking hers over there or as this man is taking his on this stenograph machine, or if he monitors it with one of these recording machines, by and large he has an aid to his memory, has he not, and if he is not dishonest it makes it more certain that his testimony will state the exact truth? I want to know your answer to that one.

Mr. HYDE. My answer is that just like notes may be used to refresh your memory, a still more complete record of events would also assist. I mention that in this field I am talking about matters which are not the particular forte of the Communications Commission. I do not presume to be an expert in this field, but I recognize that a recorded message would serve the purpose of refreshing one's memory and help him to restate something more accurately than he could state it without the aid of such assistance.

Senator WILEY. You have answered my question very well. Thank you.

Senator WELKER. One more question, Mr. Chairman. Since the distinguished Chairman of the Communications Commission is a resident of my State and since he has been an old and dear friend of mine, I think he knows something of my background in law, which has been some 26 years, starting as a prosecutor and then ending as a defense attorney in some, at least I thought, quite difficult cases. I believe you realize that most any defense attorney does not want to open the gate wherein his client might be convicted, and based upon the fact that I know that you know of the number of defense cases, you realize that as of this moment I firmly believe in the adoption of sound wiretap legislation for the preservation of our country.

Mr. HYDE. I would place a lot of importance on Senator Welker's views about this subject because of his background in the field of law, his experience as defense counsel, and his recognition of the rights of a defendant as well as the rights of the public when the public welfare is involved. I think you would be in a position to give a very valuable opinion on this matter.

Senator WELKER. I appreciate that. Thank you. That is all I have.

Senator WILEY. I think that last statement of yours is particularly important. I think that with the Senator's background he can see through the myth of human frailty and recognize the significance of this proposed legislation in the interest of the general welfare, to protect the general welfare, and I presume that we always have to think in terms of the right of the individual under the constitutional form of government, having in mind particularly the Bill of Rights and our own development in relation to the right of the individnal to grow and so forth, but into this picture has come something different in the last few years.

There has come this matter of penetration which is almost a fanatical religion whereby they take the souls of men and women and make them agents to destroy the Government of the United States, if you please.

These individuals many times are fringe lunatics or fringe intellectual lunatics and they are ready to go to all extremes. That being so we have to recognize that it is the business of government to have methods and mechanisms to protect the rights of the citizen and the machinery of government. That is why I think that a man like Senator Welker with his background as prosecuting attorney and attorney for the defense recognizes not only that the rights of the individual have to be protected but the overall rights of the community have to be protected.

Counsel, have vou any questions?
Mr. COLLINS. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Hyde, following up a point raised by Senator Welker, it is true that where vou have an interception of a communication and make a recording which can then be altered. Is that correct?

Mr. HYDE. Any message could be altered, yes.

a

a

Senator WILEY. Whether it is written down in shorthand, or whether by a stenograph machine, or whether it is just heard verbally.

Mr. HYDE. Yes.

Mr. COLLINS. Would you have any information or would you know whether such alterations can be detected ?

Mr. HYDE. It is not possible in every instance to detect an alteration. In some means of communication it is more easily detected than in others. On a written page a erasure might be detected. On a changed electromagnetic tape I think it would be impossible unless it was done awkwardly.

Senator WILEY. A lie detector might help.

Mr. HYDE. I think, Senator, that you are now referring to detection of the credibility of the witness and his integrity rather than whether a given communication has been altered.

Senator WILEY. I understand, but you use the memorandum whether it is in the form of a tape or something else to refresh the memory,

and on cross-examination of that if there is any suspicion you could ask the gentleman whether he would subject himself to a lie detector and if he is cognizant of alteration by and large in most cases you know what the answer would be—"No." All right, it would go to the credibility possibility of the witness, and so forth, but with a man like Brother Welker he would have them pretty soon.

Senator WELKER. I only wanted to make this observation, Mr. Chairman, and you, Chairman of the Commission, that had there been

, a cutout or an alteration of your wiretap, fundamentally it would not be a bit different from that of a man who bores through the door and listens to Senator Wiley and Senator Welker in their private conversation. In other words, it would go to the credibility. He has his right to defense. He is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty; and if my defendant would stand up and tell the story and subject himself to cross-examiation, then I believe in the fundamental rula that a story will uniformly be right.

Mr. HYDE. I think that is true, Senator Welker. There is this additional comment I think I should make; that to folks not informed as to the possibilities of using tapes and recordings to modify what has been said, the hearing of a man's voice might be very convincing.

Senator WELKER. You do not think with a defense attorney these characters would sit there idly and let that go by?

Mr. HYDE. I was coming to that. I do not think astute counselyou, for instance—would permit the fact that a man's own voice was being heard get by without attention being called to the fact that even a man's voice can be made to appear in a situation which was not a true reproduction.

Senator WELKER. You are an attorney yourself, Mr. Chairman, and you know very well that the first thing the defense attorney would do on cross-examination would be to establish the fact that a wiretap could be altered.

Mr. HYDE. I am satisfied that that would be done.
Senator WELKER. Thank you very much.

Senator Wiley. Then, what do you think of the proposition that we are, under the statute, to limit the right to only duly delegated or duly authorized officials? Have you any idea as to the tendency for officials to be crooked?

« ForrigeFortsett »