In other words, if there is a listening in on the connecting telephone, a kibitzing by somebody in on a party line, it is not covered under S. 1495! Mr. HUDGINS. That is our understanding, sir. Senator CARROLL. That is all, thank you. Mr. HUDGINS. Now, I wish to refer briefly to those aspects of S. 1495 about which we have some reservations. As I have stated, we believe that the extent to which wiretapping is authorized should be carefully considered and is a matter of important public policy. And we realize that the national security and law enforcement may well require some relaxing of wiretapping restrictions. But we ask the committee to consider seriously whether wiretapping should be permitted in such very broad areas as "gambling" and "racketeering." Senator CARROLL. We had some testimony yesterday by Mr. Silver who for many years has operated under a New York statute permitting wiretapping. Mr. Silver testified that to him one of the most important points for the prevention of crime was to be able to intercept messages on gambling, because in his opinion that was the basis for the real activity of the syndicates of organized crime. Your testimony is that there is a serious question raised as to that. Is it the concern of the telephone company because of the invasion of privacy and not because of the scope of the activity? There cannot be very broad gambling activity, without the use of telephones, can there? Mr. HUGHES. I would guess that to be true, yes, sir. Senator CARROLL. And we know from the testimony again of Mr. Silver, on this boiler place operation plate that they played here the other day, they were using the telephone, that is, the con artists were, to use the jargon of the trade, using the sucker list. If the police are not allowed to tap in for gambling and racketeering and to use this interception to determine other criminal activities; if we just held this to kidnapping and espionage and what we call the major crimes that affect national security you would not be able to achieve the objective that these people want in the wiretapping statute. I am not saying that you should, but I am posing some questions. Why do you feel you should only limit this to kidnapping, perhaps espionage? How about the charge of murder? How do you draw a line between a conspiracy to commit murder and murder? How would you draw a line between armed robbery where six men are going into a certain place, and other major criminal activities? I know that you cannot come up with all of these answers, but I am asking whether this should be permitted in connection with gambling? Mr. HUDGINS. I think, Senator, that Mr. Silver who, I believe, has been living under the situation in New York, with which I am not too familiar although I have read something of the New York statutes, has been with it for 20 years and this is his business and I believe your question went to whether we objected to it because of invading the privacy of communications or the scope of such activity. I guess my answer would be both, sir. We feel the more it gets into the States and the more people are allowed to legally wiretap it becomes difficult to control. Again, I am speaking from a telephone man's point of view. I must admit that I could understand Mr. Silver's reasons for wanting what he has and, probably, some clarification of the law. I think this whole matter is a matter of just how far we go between the basic individual rights and the interests of society. I guess that I just do not know the answers as to what crimes should be included or how far down the scale we should go. Senator CARROLL. I know that you are not trying to deal with the whole question of the public interests vis-a-vis the interests of the private parties. Mr. HUDGINS. Yes. Senator CARROLL. I am not thinking in terms of interfering with the existence of the telephone business. That is not the purpose of this. Mr. HUDGINS. I do not think it would interfere with the telephone business too much, sir. Of course, if every law enforcement agent in the United States could legally wiretap it might, eventually, but that is not our purpose right now. Senator CARROLL. That is what I wanted to bring out. Mr. HUDGINS. Yes, sir. Senator CARROLL. As you know, many years ago, the question arose whether there should be a direct wire running from a racetrack into an area where gambling was prohibited, so that a person could go into the Western Union office and lay down a bet in Denver to be effective, we will say, in the State of Florida. And there has been a great deal of talk on this point. I am sure that you see as to this question of racketeering and gambling, that there is no doubt that the Internal Revenue Service could get some of the racketeers if they could reach them. This would be a splendid way of breaking up some of these great gambling rings, and it is my own personal feeling that the gambling racketeers are of far greater moment to the public than kidnaping, for example. There are very few cases of kidnaping. This may not be true in the field of espionage. I cannot quite see how we can eliminate gambling and racketeering completely. It would seem to me that there are very few people who really are in this field in a big way. Mr. HUDGINS. You mean in gambling? Senator CARROLL. And racketeering in a big way. I cannot see that this would necessarily mean a major invasion of the public's privacy of which you have spoken. Mr. HUDGINS. I guess that we feel that it would be, Senator. I will agree with you, sir, that there are very few people in it in a large capacity. In other words, as large syndicate operators. I am not a lawyer at all, but to me it could cover a host of people. Unless we had the proper restrictions and controls this thing could very well get out of hand. That is our only interest-that we control it as much as it possibly can be controlled, and still do the things that are necessary to safeguard the national and State interests. Senator CARROLL. Take, for example, the gangsters in Chicago, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Kansas City, and Denver when the men from the syndicates move in. Denver has an intelligence unit in its police department, and their job is to keep abreast of the gangsters and to find out what they are doing. It would seem to me that if we are going to have any validity at all to this statute, the police should be able to move in on the big gamblers and the racketeers and that they ought to be permitted to do so. What crimes do you think we ought to cover? I may be a little premature, you may cover that later in your paper. What crimes do you think we can give permission for tapping-what type of criminal activity? Mr. HUDGINS. I think I have just stated that, Senator, the crime that we think should be, if we are going to relax the national policy at all, sir. All I can say is that I do not think I can tell you the crimes that should be included. We would only hope that they would be only those absolutely necessary to safeguard the people of this country and at the same time do what we can to maintain the privacy of telephone communications. Senator CARROLL. Should it cover the crime of kidnaping? Mr. HUDGINS. Yes, sir. This is just what we think. I do not think I am able to classify the crimes. I have read some of the testimony on this subject which goes so far as to say that it should be allowed on any crime which carries a maximum fine up to so much money. I do not think I am qualified, really, to say which crimes should be included. We are interested only in keeping them at a basic minimum. Senator CARROLL. You want to keep it to a basic minimum because you feel it would be a serious invasion of privacy-that is your interest? Mr. HUDGINS. I think so, sir. provide good telephone service. lained that way, insofar as possible. That is the business I am in, is to Senator CARROLL. You heard the discussion this morning. Do you think that there is any difference at all between a telegraph, a wire telegram, and a telephone message? Mr. HUDGINS. I heard the discussion this morning but I do not think that there is a whole lot of difference, no, sir. I heard the discussion where it is illegal maybe to tap a telegraph line, but not illegal to divulge the contents of any telegram that may have been sent. I think the telephone conversation is the principal matter between two people. Senator CARROLL. Do you think that a telegram is as personal as a telephone conversation? Mr. HUDGINS. Well, by the very nature of the way it is transmitted it cannot be, because it passes through too many hands. The typing thereof and the delivery and so forth. Senator CARROLL. You may proceed. Thank you. Mr. HUDGINS. Thank you. Feeling as we do that the protection of the privacy of communications is of vital importance, we would prefer that authorized wiretapping be limited to the national security, including the security of the States, and the serious crime of kidnaping which commonly involves the use of communication services. The Congress will of course decide how much, if any further, it should go, and we can only urge that the importance of preserving and protecting the privacy of communications must not be minimized or lost sight of in the decision. The seriousness of the threat to privacy from wiretapping for law enforcement depends to a very large extent on the amount of such wiretapping that takes place. When a telephone line is tapped, the privacy of everyone who uses it, the innocent as well as the suspect and the guilty, is invaded. Extension of wiretapping to racketeering, which usually includes gambling, would greatly increase the amount of tapping and correspondingly increase the invasion of the privacy of wholly innocent people. If this invasion of privacy became widespread and a matter of common knowledge, it could seriously inhibit the general public in their use of communication services which have become a necessity in their daily lives. We recognize, of course, that racketeering and organized crime are matters of great concern to the Government and all good citizens, but seriously question whether on balance wiretapping should be authorized in those areas. Another question we would like to raise is whether every Federal, State, and local officer should be permitted to intercept. (S. 1495, sec. 4 (a), (b), and (c)). Previous proposed Federal legislation has generally limited wiretapping to the FBI and such other agencies as the intelligence branches of the Armed Forces. We feel strongly that care should be exercised to assure on both the Federal and State sides that those authorized to wiretap are thoroughly responsible and can demonstrate a real need for this dangerous weapon. Likewise, with reference to sections 2(10) (B) and 4(c) of S. 1495, might not the term "judge of competent jurisdiction" be specifically defined to make it clear that minor courts, such as police magistrates or justices of the peace, could not authorize wiretapping? As to both of these points, the consideration is whether law enforcement needs require the relaxation of the law and the invasion of privacy to the extent which S. 1495 in its present form permits. Incidentally, I am not quite sure whether S. 1495 pertains only to interstate communications or to both interstate and intrastate messages. Presumably inclusion of both was intended. The committee may want to consider further the definition of "wire communications" (sec. 2(1)). I would like to turn now to S. 1221 which relates to eavesdropping, including wiretapping, and to the recording of various conversations. This bill apparently pertains to both interstate and intrastate messages. Confining myself to its wiretapping aspects, S. 1221 goes much further than S. 1495 in relaxing the prohibitions against wiretapping by law enforcement people. On the other hand we fear that the definitions of "person" and "instrument" are so broad as to provide a serious obstacle to the telephone companies in doing things necessary to give service. Specifically, the term "instrument" might include all sorts of telephone equipment and thus prohibit interception by telephone employees in rendering service. As I have previously pointed out, telephone companies must do a certain amount of interception of calls-particularly while the call is being placed-simply to determine that proper connections have been made and that transmission is 85952 O-62-17 satisfactory. S. 1495 recognizes this problem and exempts activities of telephone people necessary in the rendition of service. A like exemption should be provided in any proposed legislation such as S. 1221. We are aware that certain of the provisions of S. 1221 are similar to the New York State eavesdropping law. The New York law, however, contains specific exemptions such as those to which I refer. Apparently, S. 1221 would prohibit eavesdropping or listening in on extension telephones and party lines. As I stated earlier we do not think it is desirable to classify these activities as crimes along with wiretapping. Our general reaction to S. 1221 is that it goes too far in relaxing the restrictions on wiretapping. It contains few standards and supervisory controls for the wiretapping authorized and goes beyond desirable limits of permissible interception. For these reasons, in addition to our comments on S. 1495, we believe S. 1495 to be the more desirable bill. The final bill in this group, S. 1086, deals only with wiretapping by the States. It permits interception of wire or radio communications by State and local law enforcement officers, in compliance with any statute of such State, upon a finding by a court of that State that reasonable grounds exist for a belief that interception might disclose evidence of the commission of a crime. The provisions of this bill also appear essentially as section 575(1) of S. 1221, which is the part of S. 1221 which deals primarily with State and local interceptions. In view of the similarity between S. 1086 and section 575 (1) of S. 1221, our comments on the latter bill would apply here. I might simply reiterate that these two bills provide for much more extensive wiretapping and a more serious invasion of the privacy of telephone communications than S. 1495, which is more specific as to procedure and the crimes for which interception may be ordered, and sets up more definite standards which both Federal and State courts and officials must follow. For the various reasons which I have stated, we believe that if Congress decides that wiretapping should be authorized, a bill along the the lines of S. 1495-with the modifications I have suggested-affords the best framework for doing it. Before discussing the company rules and practices of the Mountain States Co., I would like to comment briefly on the written testimony of Mr. Wellington Powell of the New York Telephone Co., which was filed with this committee last year. As you know, Mr. Powell's personal appearance before the committee was scheduled but later canceled. Among other things, Mr. Powell covered very completely the complex plant layout and operations of a telephone company. His exhibits include photographs and diagrams which are helpful in understanding a telephone system and how it works. I have reviewed these exhibits. They are typical of the plant of my company and, I believe, of the Bell System. If the committee wishes, I shall be happy to explain any of those exhibits. I have also reviewed Mr. Powell's testimony on the New York Telephone Co.'s rules and practices dealing with protecting the privacy of communications. These rules and practices in the Moun |