Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

forth in its report of March 24, 1947, herein, with respect to the need for such notification in connection with the use of telephone recording devices;

IT IS ORDERED, That the Commission's report of March 24, 1947, herein, as modified by this order, is made a part hereof by reference;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the use of recording devices in connection with interstate and foreign message toll telephone service is authorized, subject to the following conditions:

(1) That such use is accompanied by adequate notice to all parties to the telephone conversation that the conversation is being recorded ;

(2) That such notice will be given by the use of an automatic tone warning device, which will automatically produce a distinct signal that is repeated at regular intervals during the course of the telephone conversation when the recording device is in use; such signal to have the characteristics specified above;

(3) That such automatic tone warning device may be furnished or maintained by anyone, whether or not a telephone company, subject to the requirement that such device have the characteristics specified above;

(4) That no recording device shall be used in connection with interstate or foreign message toll telephone service unless, at the will of the user, it can be physically connected to and disconnected from the telephone line or switched on and off ;

(5) That in the case of a telephone recorder physically attached to the telephone line, the equipment necessary to make such physical connection as distinguished from the automatic tone warning device, shall be provided, installed, and maintained by a company or other organization responsible for

the furnishing of the telephone service; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That respondent carriers shall rescind and cancel any tariff regulations which any of them now have on file with this Commission which have the effect of barring the use of recording devices in connection with interstate and foreign telephone service under the conditions of such use specified in this order;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That telephone carriers subject to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, shall, in acordance with the provisions of Section 203 of the Act, file tariff regulations with the Commission which provide for the use of recording devices in connection with interstate and foreign message toll telephone service under the conditions specified in this order; and which, in addition, provide for reasonable arrangements for sales demonstrations of telephone recorders by recorder organizations ;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That telephone carriers subject to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, shall undertake an appropriate publicity program designed to inform telephone users generally of the use of telephone recording devices and of the import of the warning signal ;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the above petitions of The Soundscriber Corp., Thomas A. Edison, Inc., and Dictaphone Corp., are denied ;

IT IS FURTHEB ORDERED, That this order shall take effect on the 15th day of January 1948. By the Commission.

T. J. SLOWIE, Secretary. Commissioners Webster and Jones not participating. Released : November 28, 1947.

BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, WASHINGTON 25, D.C.

(Docket No. 6787) In the Matter of Use of Recording Devices in Connection With Telephone Service

ORDER At a session of the Federal Communications Commission held at its offices in Washington, D.C., on the 20th day of May, 1948;

The Commission, having under consideration its Order of November 26, 1947, herein, and its Order of March 25, 1948, postponing the effective date of the Order of November 26, 1947, to a date to be subsequently fixed by order of the Commission; and also having under consideration the petition filed on December

85952 0-62-34

19, 1947, by the Bell System Companies requesting the Commission to modify said Order of November 26, 1947, so as to (1) provide that the furnishing, installation and maintenance of the automatic tone warning device contemplated thereby shall be the sole responsibility of the company or other organization responsible for the furnishing of the telephone service, (2) specity greater variance in the recurrence of the signal produced by such tone warning derice, and (3) extend the effective date of the Order forty-five days from the date of the Commission's action on said petition; the various other petitions, replies, and statements filed by the parties herein since the issuance of the above Order of November 26, 1947; the public informal conference held on April 6, 1948 pursuant to the Commission's public notice of March 17, 1948, at which certain questions presented by the above petitions, replies, and statements were considered ; and the statements filed on May 10, 1948, by certain of the participants in said conference;

IT APPEARING, That a requirement that the furnishing, installation and maintenance of the above-mentioned tone warning device shall be the responsibility of the company or other organization responsible for the furnishing of the telephone service is desirable and in the public interest, in that such requirement will insure the use and proper maintenance of the tone warning device which will produce the signal having the characteristics described in the Order of November 26, 1947, as hereinafter modified; will insure maximum uniformity in the warning signal produced by tone warning devices throughout the country as contemplated in the final report adopted herein on March 24, 1947; will serre better to effectuate the basic purpose of the Order of November 26, 1947, to offer adequate notification to the telephone-using public that their telephone conversations are being recorded ; and will provide a guard against impairment of telephone service which may result from inferior tone warning devices and improper maintenance thereof;

IT FURTHER APPEARING, That an increase in the permissible variance in the frequency of recurrence of the tone warning signal as specified in the above Order of November 26, 1947, is desirable and in the public interest in that such increase will reduce the cost of manufacture of tone warning devices without materially affecting the efficacy of the tone signal as an adequate warning:

IT IS ORDERED, That the Order of November 26, 1947, herein I8 MODIFIED in the following respects :

In the third recital paragraph of said Order, the fourth characteristic specified therein shall read:

"Frequency of recurrence of each signal • • • not less than 12 seconds and not more than 18 seconds."

In the second decretal paragraph of said Order, subparagraphs (3) and (5) thereof are revised to read as follows:

“(3) That such automatic tone warning device shall be furnished, installed, and maintained by the company or other organization responsible for the furnishing of the telephone service, subject to the requirements that such device have the characteristics specified above;

“(5) That in the case of a telephone recorder physically attached to the telephone line, the equipment necessary to make such physical connection, includ. ing the automatic tone warning device, shall be provided, installed, and maintained by the company or other organization responsible for the furnishing of the telephone service."

The fourth decretal paragraph of said Order is revised to read:

"It is further ordered that telephone carriers subject to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, shall, in accordance with the provisions of Section 203 of the Act, file tariff regulations with the Commission, to become effective on not less than 30 days' notice, but in no event to become effective later than August 2, 1948, and to provide for the use of recording devices in connection with interstate and foreign message toll telephone service under the conditions specified in this Order; and, in addition, to provide for reasonable arrangements for sales demonstrations of telephone recorders by recorder organizations."

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the Order of November 26, 1947, as modified here in, shall take effect on the 30th day of June, 1948.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,

T. J. SLOWIE, Secretary.
Commissioner Jones dissenting.
Commissioners Hyde, Webster, and Sterling not participating.

(The following letter was submitted for the record by Senator Thomas J. Dodd :)

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIF., Hon. THOMAS J. DODD,

July 11, 1961. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR DODD: Permit me to join with you, your colleagues in the Senate, and the office of the U.S. Attorney General in advocating the legali: zation of wiretapping by appropriate agencies of government on all

levels, with adequate controls, in the enforcement of the law and the protection of the Nation's security.

In a television debate on the program, "The Nation's Future," broadcast July 8, 1961, I debated the affirmative of the question “Are Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Desirable Law Enforcement Methods?” My opening statement was as follows:

"I believe that the security of the nation will depend largely upon the internal security of the country. I think in this contest in the cold war, this international conflict, that somehow we must meet the challenge that has been given to us by President Kennedy when he says the self-discipline of the free mind must match the iron discipline of the mailed fist. And as I interpret that, I believe that he is talking about a level of discipline in America that must be sufficiently high to permit us to contest in the cold war with the Soviet bloc, and I think that the only measure of discipline that is reasonably accurate, the level of discipline in America, is the amount of disorder and crime that the American people are committing.

"Now, as crime is increasing four times the rate of the population increase in the past decade, we see an ever-growing amount of crime in relation to the population that I think threatens the internal security of the Nation.

*As far as the electronic devices are concerned, it is incumbent, I believe, upon all agencies of government to utilize those devices that are perfected in the technological advancement of our Nation and that can be properly, legally, and constitutionally used to aid in the discharge of their responsibilities.

"Now I think that the interception of communications by electronic means under proper control is a source of intelligence that is imperative in the war that we are waging against the criminal army, and I believe if we deprive our law enforcement forces of these facilities that we are crippling them in their attempt to do their task.

"We are spending a tremondous amount of money without the real reward that we should be getting in the way of services rendered, and we are making it almost impossible for these agencies to meet the challenge that they face.

"We are told by one eminent English historian, a contemporary from Oxford by the name of Charles Rieth, that his study of the history of nations and their downfall has convinced him that every nation that has failed to enforce its laws has perished. I think that is a very sobering thought for the American people. And of course, the question of where do we pivot on law enforcement I think depends largely upon the ability of our law enforcement agencies at least to hold the line until the American people can decide what it is they wish to sacrifice in order to maintain their Nation.

"Now, we talk about the invasion of privacy, and that is the big issue in this, and I will agree that it is a question that can be debated conscientiously and honestly from either side. But there is hardly any police action taken that does not involve an invasion of privacy. So, really, what we want to talk about and think about, I believe, is the balance between the protection that the Constitution gives the individual in his own activities, and the constitutional guarantees to the law abiding. Who is going to protect them from the standpoint of the invasion of their rights to life, liberty, and property if it is not law enforcement? If we have not the tools we cannot do it, and we are not doing the job in America. Seven out of ten criminals in this country are never apprehended. And that situation appears to be even deteriorating.

"So I submit to you that under proper controls within the constitutional guarantees that the electronic devices available should be utilized by law enforcement in the proper enforcement of the law just the same as all other technological advancements available to them should be utilized.”

Among the statistical data used in this debate is one item that may be of interest to you. Twenty-four States with a total population of 83,672,999 inhab itants admit wiretap evidence while 26 States with a total population of 94,054,411 inhabitants exclude wiretap evidence. Twenty-four States that admit such

evidence experienced a crime rate (pt. 1 offenses) during the year 1959 of 759.1 offenses per 100,000. The crime rate for the same year for the 26 States that exclude wiretap evidence was 1,017.3 per 100,000 inhabitants. Therefore, the States that exclude wiretap evidence suffered a 34 percent higher crime rate during 1959 than the States that admit wiretap evidence.

I am enclosing a reprint of an article entitled "Surveillance by Wiretap or Dictograph: Threat or Protection?" authored by me and which appeared in The California Law Review, Volume 42, No. 5, December 1954.' While this material was prepared more than 6 years ago I believe the contents are fully valid today. Thanks for the opportunity of providing you with this information. Sincerely yours,

W. H. PARKER, Chief of Police. TRANSCRIPT OF TELEVISION PROGRAM CONCERNING WIRETAPPING

AND EAVESDROPPING

(The transcript which follows was submitted for the record of the hearings at the request of Senator John A. Carroll.)

THE NATION'S FUTURE
(Taped June 28 for broadcast July 8, 1961, NBC Television)
Moderator: Edwin Newman.
Guests: Police Chief W. H. Parker and Edward Bennett Williams.

Mr. Newman. This is Police Chief W. H. Parker of Los Angeles. Chief Parker believes wiretapping and other electronic forms of surveillance are desirable methods of enforcing the law.

This is Trial Lawyer Edward Bennett Williams. Mr. Williams believes that wiretapping and other electronic forms of surveillance are not desirable methods of enforcing the law.

ANNOUNCER. From New York another in a series of hour debates affecting the Nation's future. Our subject : “Are Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Desirable Law Enforcement Methods?"

Our speakers: Police Chief W. H. Parker, of Los Angeles, and noted Trial Lawyer Edward Bennett Williams. In our audience, attorneys, law enforcement officers, newspapermen, the general public. Now, here is our moderator, noted news analyst, Edwin Newman.

Mr. Newman. Good evening. Tonight, a debate that touches on the great issues of civil liberties and national security : Are wiretapping and eavesdropping desirable law enforcement methods? Wiretapping is the term used to describe techniques which enable law enforcement officers to listen in on telephone conversation. Eavesdropping is a term that is used to describe such tools of surveillance as hidden tape recorders, hidden cameras, and concealed microphones. Defenders of wiretapping and eavesdropping consider them indispensable tools of law enforcement. Critics consider them an improper and illegal invasion of privacy. The controversy has reached new intensity in the recent months.

Our first speaker, W. H. Parker, is chief of the Nation's largest police beat, Los Angeles. An attorney admitted to practice before the Supreme Court, author of text books on criminology, Mr. Parker has been police chief of Los Angeles for eleven years. Mr. Parker, your position, please.

Mr. PARKER. Thank you, sir. Well, as a law enforcement officer whose sole objective in life in the past 34 years has been one of bringing security to the community in which I serve, and also as a law enforcement officer coming from a State which permits neither eavesdropping nor wiretapping, I am in a rather peculiar position to discuss this, at least, somewhat objectively.

I believe that the security of the Nation will depend largely on the internal security of the country. I think in this contest in the cold war, this international conflict, that somehow we must meet the challenge that has been given to us by President Kennedy when he says the discipline of the free mind must match the iron discipline of the mailed fist. And as I interpret that, I believe that he is talking about a level of discipline in America that most be sufficiently high to permit us to contest in the cold war with the Soviet bloc, and I think that the only measure of discipline that is reasonably accurate,

1 This article appears in pt 4 of the subcommittee's printed hearings on "Wiretapping. Eavesdropping and the Bill of Rights" at pp. 1225-1235.

the level of discipline in America is the amount of disorder and crime that the people are committing.

Now, as crime is increasing four times the rate of the population increase in the past decade, we see an ever-growing amount of crime in relation to the population that I think threatens the internal security of the Nation.

As far as the electronic devices are concerned, it is incumbent, I believe, upon all agencies of government to utilize those devices that are perfected in the technological advancement of our Nation and that can be properly, legally, and constitutionally used to aid in the discharge of their responsibilities.

Now, I think that the interception of communications by electronic means under proper control is a source of intelligence that is imperative in the war that we are waging against the criminal army, and I believe if we deprive our law enforcement forces of these facilities that we are crippling them in their attempt to do their task.

We are spending a tremendous amount of money without the real reward that we should be getting in the way of services rendered, and we are making it almost impossible for these agencies to meet the challenge that they face.

We are told by one eminent English historian, contemporary from Oxford by the name of Charles Reith, that his study of the history of nations and their downfall has convinced him that every nation that has failed to enforce its laws has perished.

I think that is a very sobering thought for the American people. And of course, the question of where do we pivot on law enforcement I think depends largely on the ability of our law enforcement agency at least to hold the line until the American people can decide wbat it is they wish to sacrifice in order to maintain their Nation.

Now, we talk about the invasion of privacy, and that is the big issue in this, and I will agree that it is a question that can be debated conscientiously and honestly from either side. But there is hardly any police action taken that does not involve an invasion of privacy. So, really, what we want to talk about and think about, I believe, is the balance between the protection that the constitution gives the individual in his own activities, and the constitutional guarantees to the law abiding.

Who is going to protect them from the standpoint of the invasion of that right to life, liberty, and property if it is not law enforcement? If we have not the tools we cannot do it, and we are not doing the job in America. Seven out of ten criminals in this country are never apprehended. That situation appears to be even deteriorating.

I submit within the proper controls under the constitutional guarantees, the electronic devices available should be utilized by law enforcement in the proper enforcement of the law just the same as all other technological advancements to them should be utilized.

Mr. NEWMAN. Thank you, sir.

Edward Bennett Williams is one of America's most prominent practioners of criminal law. He has tried many of the most important cases of the last 10 years. He is on the board of directors of the American Civil Liberties Union, he is a member of the American College of Trial Lawyers, and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers.

Mr. Williams, may we have your statement, please?

Mr. WILLIAMB. Mr. Newman, Chief Parker, ladies and gentlemen, wiretapping has been a Federal crime punishable by imprisonment in this country since 1934. And despite this fact, it is rampant in the United States today. It is employed in connection with criminal and civil litigation, in commercial and industrial matters, in domestic matters. It is employed by police investigators, and by private investigators, unscrupulous private investigators, who traffic in other people's privacy.

The reason that there is so much wiretapping is that there is so little enforcement, and the reason that there is so little enforcement is because the very agency which is charged with the obligation of enforcing the wiretapping law of the United States is itself violating it, and has been for 25 years.

I am opposed to wiretapping as a law enforcement device because I am opposed to lawless law enforcement.

I agree with what Mr. Justice Brandeis said about wiretapping as a law enforcement device 30 years age when he said if the Government becomes a lawbreaker it breeds contempt for law. It invites every man to become a

« ForrigeFortsett »