Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

a

Mr. HUDGINS. The Supreme Court's interpretation I believe is that wiretapping as such is not a crime. It is the divulgence thereof that is a crime. I believe that is correct.

Senator CARROLL. I gathered from your testimony you favor with certain limitations S. 1495?

Mr. HUDGINS. Yes. We do. Senator Hruska's bill, I might comment, I think goes a little bit further than S. 1221 and S. 1086. He did, Í believe, limit it to a particular telephone on which it may be suspected that a certain crime is about to be committed but I do not know whether that is the kind of a limitation that could be controlling at all, but it is much broader than S. 1495.

Senator CARROLL. Well, suppose that we go back to the procedure that we followed before the Supreme Court's interpretation of section 605, to permit each State to formulate its own rules and statutes to cover this point, has this worked any hardship in Colorado at all?

Mr. HUDGINS. No, sir; as I say, all of our States, except Texas, I believe, ban wiretapping. I understand that evidence so obtained is admissible, but wiretapping itself is banned by State statutes.

Senator CARROLL. I am referring now to the Mountain States area, were they getting along all right before the Supreme Court's interpretation of section 605?

Mr. HUDGINS. I think so. Again, I think it is because up until now, in this part of the country, we have not been subjected to the kind of activity in this field that apparently, is true in New York.

Senator CARROLL. You were in New York with the telephone system!

Mr. HUDGINS. I was in New York.
Senator CARROLL. Are you familiar with that?

Mr. HUDGIN8. I was in New York for 242 years in a field of endeavor far removed from anything where I would know anything about wiretapping. I was in the labor relations field, with the American Co., so I knew nothing at all about what went on at that time.

Senator CARROLL. Suppose we modified the law in accordance with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law, and suppose that the FBI in Denver was given permission to intercept, would that create a hardship on your company?

Mr. HUDGINS. Hardship, did you say, sir?
Senator CARROLL. Yes.

Mr. HUDGINS. No. I do not think it would be a hardship. We would not do any tapping for them. We would cooperate with the FBI.

Senator CARROLL. If a Federal court granted such an order, and the order were presented to your company, how would that order be fulfilled!

Mr. HUDGINS. What would be the nature of the order, sir?
Senator CARROLL. The order would be to tap in on a certain line.

Mr. HUDGINS. We would not do any tapping at all as a telephone company. As I say, we would cooperate with such an order, if that was the law of the State. I am not sure, because, again, I am no lawyer, whether it is or not. At the moment I do not think we could get an order, but if the State law was changed, certainly, we would cooperate.

Senator CARROLL. In other words, if the court order showed permission was granted to tap in on a certain line you might explain to the police where the cables were, where the line was, but the telephone company itself would not do any tapping!

Mr. HUDGINS. That is right.
Senator CARROLL. And you would do no monitoring?
Mr. HUDGINS. No, sir.

Senator CARROLL. Mr. Silver testified yesterday about a leased line. I do not quite understand what he meant by a leased line going into a particular office.

Mr. HUDGINS. Well, this leased line thing I have read a lot about. I do not know too much about it, either, because we do not furnish such a leased line. I think what Mr. Silver had in mind was that he would like the telephone companies to make his job a little easier by giving him a line which he could tap in on on any suspect that he might have. We do not furnish such equipment.

Senator CARROLL. You mean a leased line would be a line going into an office, and depending upon the court, the telephone company would point out where the line was and then the police could tap in!

Mr. HUDGINS. Well, I am not sure what Mr. Silver had in mind when he said a leased line. I assume that he meant a line which he might lease from the telephone company, and that they would do his work for him.

Again, I say we have no experience with such service because we just do not furnish it at all. It is not our practice.

Senator CARROLL. In your own area you have stated that you keep locks on the doors ?

Mr. HUDGINS. Yes, sir.

Senator CARROLL. 'Were you referring only the Mountain States area?

Mr. Hudgins. I was referring particularly to the Mountain States area.

Senator CARROLL. To the Mountain States area !
Mr. HUDGINS. Yes.

Senator CARROLL. I think you have indicated that there is very little wiretapping in our area.

Mr. HUDGINS. Very little that has come to our attention. As I mentioned we have received several requests, three or four a year, perhaps, in Colorado from customers who thought that their line was being tapped. In no case in Colorado have we actually found a tap existed when we checked the line out. And this takes from 3 to 4 hours to do. So if there is a tap on it why it can be quickly removed, as you indicated previously.

Senator CARROLL. There has been some testimony that wiretapping is used by private investigators, perhaps by business competitors. And, I think, by State enforcement officers and Federal enforcement officers, too.

Is that true in the Mountain States area, do you think?

Mr. HUDGINS. I can only speak for my conviction and I will say no. It is not widespread in the Mountain States area. Of course, I do not know where they are getting their information. I do not believe it as widespread as in other parts of the country of which I have heard and read about. This is my personal conviction, based upon 32 years in the business, sir.

Senator CARROLL. If we broadened the statute, the Federal statute, or if we leave the matter to the States, and assuming that Colorado would pass a statute similar to the one in New York for interception, would this stop the local officers from obtaining an order from the court for tapping a gambling transaction or a bookie using a public telephone?

Mr. HUDGINS. I am afraid it would, sir. That is what we are extremely worried about, is the number of people who may be authorized to do this in every subdivision of law enforcement in the United States, and the more people who do it, I think the more abuse that would be prevalent.

Senator CARROLL. The reason I mention it, Mr. Chairman, is that recently within the last 2 years we have had some horse racing in the State by parimutuel system. If the people want to bet they go to the racetrack; however, we always find that there are bookies who make their books off the racetrack. I do not know about it, but I understand that they are using the telephone, a pay telephone to lay their bets. This is the reason I raised that question. You have been very helpful here. I appreciate your coming here.

Mr. HUDGINS. Thank you, sir.
Senator CARROLL. Your testimony is very clear.

Senator Ervin. In connection with the wiretapping and the opinion expressed as to how widespread it is, do not those who engage in such practices have first to locate the position of the wire they are going to tap?

Mr. Hudgins. They certainly do, sir. And that is not easy to do.

Senator Ervin. Do they not have to put on an apparatus of some kind and, also, find a place for listening in?

Mr. HUDGINS. That is right, sir.

Senator Ervin. And so the man who starts out to do wiretapping runs the risk of being apprehended for trespassing, does he not?

Mr. HUDGINS. I would certainly think so.

Senator Ervin. I would infer that that is not an easy thing to avoid detection,

Mr. HUDGINS. That is my feeling completely, sir.
Senator ERVIN. Thank you.
Senator Carroll ?

Senator CARROLL. Is the principal reason for Mountain States Telephone Co.'s position the feeling that this widespread use of interception is a real invasion of personal privacy!

Mr. HUDGINS. That is exactly the way we feel, sir.

Senator CARROLL. And you would feel the same way as to the electronic system, the bugging system !

Mr. HUDGINS. Well, as I mentioned, I did not talk about eavesdropping as such. We have not thought about the bugging system on that at all. I have my own personal feelings about it. I think that, also, is an invasion of privacy, but it does not immediately concern the telephone circuits as such.

Senator CARROLL. I was thinking that if the message going over a telephone line has a great personal matter of privacy, how much more an invasion of privacy it would be if somebody could drive a spike into a bedroom wall or into any wall and get information.

Mr. HUDGINS. That is right.

.

a

Senator CARROLL. I am not fully and thoroughly conversant with all of the new electronic systems, but I would assume that this could be done by a person outside of the house. I believe we have had testimony on that to the effect that they could do it maybe 50 feet away from the house.

Mr. HUDGINS. I have read something about the so-called parabolic microphone which could be heard from 50 feet away, but the difficulty with that is that you hear all of the noises 50 feet away. I think they would have difficulty getting any intelligible conversation unless it was very quiet everywhere else except at the one point they wanted to pick up. Senator CARROLL. Thank you.

Mr. CREECH. Mr. Hudgins, I should like to ask you this question. S. 1221 imposes a duty on the telephone company to report to the appropriate law enforcement agency any information coming to their attention by violations of wiretapping laws, and any failure to make such a report is punishable by a fine up to $500. I would appreciate your comment on this section of the bill and any reference you desire toward it.

Mr. HUDGINS. All I can say at the moment on that is that in our State, where wiretapping is banned by statute, if we find such a thing it is reported to the law enforcement officers at the moment. We do not think we should be put in the law enforcement business.

Senator CARROLL. You say that you do report it as soon as you find it?

Mr. HUDGINS. If we find an actual tap, yes, sir, we do.

Mr. CREECH. Your employees are under such instructions—all of them are instructed to report any violation that a wiretap is present ?

Mr. HUDGINS. That is right.

Mr. CREECH. You say that you report it, do you report it to the district attorney or to the local law enforcement officers

Mr. HUDGINS. I cannot answer that question. I think it is to the district attorney's office.

Mr. CREECH. Do you keep any record of these reports to the district attorney's office?

Mr. Hudgens. No, sir. As I mentioned in my testimony the occurrences have been so rare that we have not kept any statistics or records on them at all.

Mr. CREECH. What check does the telephone company keep on the law enforcement officers who are making wiretaps under your local and State authority-do you take any action to assure that the wiretap is authorized and request them to show the court order?

Mr. Hudgins. In our State wiretapping is illegal and we have not had that.

Mr. CREECH. There is only one State in your area which does not ban it, Texas?

Mr. HUDGINS. Our company is in part in one part of Texas. There we only operate in El Paso County, which is actually the city of El Paso itself.

Mr. CREECH. You are not familiar with the position taken by the Bell Telephone Co. in Rochester, N.Y., and elsewhere?

Mr. HUDGINS. I am sorry, I am not, sir.

Mr. CREECH. You indicated in your statement approval of the reporting requirements in S. 1495. Do you think, sir, that these reports should be made to the Justice Department! We heard one witness propose that should be the appropriate agency. Another witness proposed the Federal Communications Commission, while a third proposed that the reports should go to the court-do you have any preference in that matter?

Mr. HUDGINS. Well, I do not have any preference, but I have a great deal of difficulty making a regulatory body, such as the Federal Communications Commission, a law-enforcement body. I mean, I think they should be reported, but not to the Federal Communications Commission.

Mr. CREECH. Does the telephone company have a monitor to determine the telephone that is being used in the furtherance of a crime?

Mr. HUDGINS. I did not understand your question. Mr. CREECH. Do you have a monitor on the telephone to determine whether it is being used in the furtherance of a crime?

Mr. HUDGINS. Do you mean, can we monitor a line to determine that?

Mr. CREECH. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUDGINS. As to whether it can be done we have no such equipment as such, no. In fact, I think you have heard some testimony that a tap itself is very, very difficult to determine with the electrical equipment and the apparatus that we have in our plant.

Senator CARROLL. I think the question was, are you able to monitor a line to determine whether or not there is a violation of law?

Mr. CREECH. Yes. Are you able to do it, and do you ever do it?

Mr. HUDGINS. We do not do it, because we are not in the crime detection business and wiretapping again is illegal in our State. If it had to be done physically it could be done, certainly.

Mr. CREECH. Does the telephone company ever refuse service to an individual on the basis of his having used the telephone previously for any illegal purpose ?

Mr. HUDGINS. Yes, sir, we do.
Mr. CREECH. You do?
Mr. HUDGINS. Yes.

Mr. CREECH. By the same token, do you refuse service to an individual whom you suspect of using a telephone for illegal purposes?

Mr. Hudgins. No, sir. I do not think we could do that, unless it is known. I think we would not.

Mr. CREECH. Do you have such instances whero a man was found to be a bookie, and you have refused to give him a telephone line later?

Mr. HUDGINS. That is correct.

Senator CARROLL. Do you do that by authority of State law or by your own decision?

Mr. HUDGINS. Well, it is by a filed tariff.
Senator CARROLL. By what?
Mr. HUDGINS. Our filed tariffs with the State Commission.

Senator CARROLL. In other words, assuming all things to be equal, you could not deny a private citizen the right to have a telephone?

Mr. HUDGINS. No, sir.

Senator CARROLL. But if you did deny a person the right to have a telephone you would have to justify your action.

Mr. HUDGINS. That is right.

a

« ForrigeFortsett »