WASHINGTON-The real issue of the digital wiretap act is cost, according to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. And, changing both the compliance date and the “grandfather date” will not increase its implementation costs, Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) said earlier this month in a letter sent to Attorney General Janet Reno.
Hyde’s letter disputed Reno’s assertion that changing the dates would have “substantial harm to public safety by hindering law enforcement’s ability to use court-authorized electronic surveillance.”
As such, Hyde seems to agree with the telecom industry that the wiretap standard is satisfactory. Law enforcement believes the interim standard is deficient.
Hyde’s support is not surprising. Hyde and John Conyers (D-Ga.), in their role as the leadership of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter July 24 to FCC Chairman William Kennard urging the FCC to grant a two-year extension and direct manufacturers to begin building solutions complying with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) of 1994 and equipment based on the industry standard.
The standard is under review by the FCC. A similar petition from the Center for Democracy and Technology claims the industry standard is too burdensome.
Hyde authored an amendment to the Department of Justice reauthorization bill, which extended both the compliance date and grandfather date to Oct. 1, 2000.
In his letter, Hyde justifies extending the grandfather date, which is currently Jan. 1, 1995. “Changing the grandfather date to reflect the reality of the delays encountered in the implementation of CALEA will not increase the costs to the government. Existing carrier networks are deemed compliant unless and until retrofitted at government expense under [CALEA]. Law enforcement has a duty to decide its electronic surveillance priorities in accordance with available funds.”
Reno had argued that “allowing the reimbursement cut-off date to slip five years … will either 1) significantly raise the costs to the taxpayer by necessitating hundreds of millions of dollars to be appropriated for the telephone companies to retrofit equipment that was deployed despite the CALEA compliance date or 2) if substantial additional funding is not provided, result in being unable to support court-ordered electronic surveillance for many years to come.”
