SurveillanceFBI wants 1994 online surveillance law updated

Published 1 April 2013

The FBI said the agency’s top priority this year is to update a surveillance law so authorities can monitor in real time Web activities of Americans suspected of committing crimes. The 1994 law, known as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), applies to telecommunication companies, but only partially to Web-based companies.

FBI lawyer Andrew Weissman said the FBI’s top priority this year is to update a surveillance law so authorities can monitor in real time Web activities of Americans suspected of committing crimes.

Huffington Postreports that Weissman, who spoke at a luncheon last week for the American Bar Association, said that a 1994 federal law, which was enacted to help law enforcement conduct lawful surveillance, is outdated. The law,  known as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), applies to telecommunication companies, but only partially to Web-based companies.

Weissman said the difference in the law prevents law enforcement from tracking people on Web-based services such as Gmail, Google Voice, and DropBox.

“We’re making the ability to intercept communications with a court order increasingly obsolete,” Weissman said at the luncheon. “Those communications are being used for criminal conversations.”

“This huge legal apparatus…to prevent crimes, prevent terrorist acts is becoming increasingly hampered and increasingly marginalized the more we have technology that is not covered by CALEA, because we don’t have the ability to just go to the court and say ‘You know what, they just have to do it.’”

Weissman said the FBI has made it a “top priority this year” to draft a proposal which will modernize the law to give law enforcement the ability to obtain such data with a court order.

CNETreported last year that the FBI drafted a proposal for a law which would require Internet companies to ensure that social networks, instant messaging services, and e-mail providers “are wiretap-friendly.”

CNET also reported that any expansion of the bill is “unlikely to be applauded by privacy groups or tech companies.”