FC: FBI's Mueller refuses to commit to independent Carnivore review

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Fri Aug 03 2001 - 07:46:41 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Sen. Torricelli's "anti-hacker" bill puts parents, kids in jail"

    [Excerpt from transcript of Mueller's confirmation hearing before the 
    Senate Judiciary committee on Tuesday. --Declan]
    
    ---
    
        SEN. MARIA CANTWELL (D-WA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mueller. Thank you
    for answering a variety of questions both today and yesterday related to
    technology and cybercrime. I'll try to be specific in my questions. And sorry I
    was not here yesterday for your statement, but have a copy of that.
    
        The glaring inconsistency with the FBI, in my mind, seems to be this fact
    that the internal information systems are not where they need to be. And we've
    all heard examples of that this morning, and I'm sure yesterday as well. 
    And yet
    the FBI has continued in its efforts with Carnivore, which has also been 
    plagued
    with a variety of privacy concerns. So I see an inconsistency there. And so I
    don't know if you have made statements yet about what kind of review of
    resources and allocation of resources to those two tasks, and if you think that
    maybe some of the Carnivore activities and resources should actually be 
    spent on
    improving your IT information system, given the concerns that so many privacy
    entities have about Carnivore?
    
        MR. MUELLER: I'm sensitive to the concerns relating to privacy, I, as a
    citizen, but also having sat down and talked with a number of the privacy
    groups here when I was assistant -- when I was acting deputy attorney 
    general. I
    am sensitive to the concerns about what is called DCS1000, previously known as
    Carnivore, and other technological advances.
    
        There is, I think -- there are two separate paths, though, that we're 
    looking
    at. On the one hand, the investigative tools and the investigative expertise
    developed by the FBI and the new technologies I think is next to none. I think
    they have made rapid advances. There are privacy concerns that we have to
    address. But nonetheless, I do not think that the FBI is behind in its ability
    to investigate attacks on computers, Denial of Service attacks on 
    computers, and
    the like.
    
        On the other hand, the technological infrastructure whereby the ability to
    scan and put documents into a database and have them automatically retrievable,
    I think, is behind what you would find in a business, in a law firm.
    
        And that's an area that we really need to look at so that you pick up that
    side of the technology piece so that we can respond better to our
    responsibilities. Likewise, the internal mechanisms and controls that could be
    benefited by new technologies, whether it be e-mail or case tracking systems,
    have to be modernized so that we can have greater control and understanding of
    the caseload that we have.
    
        SEN. CANTWELL: Did you say that you didn't think that we were behind -- the
    FBI was behind in investigating cybercrime activities?
    
        MR. MUELLER: I think we are on the cutting edge. We need additional
    expertise. We need -- we can always use additional agents, we could always use
    additional technology, but I do believe that the FBI, at least in my district,
    as I've seen it, does a very capable job given the tools, the limited tools it
    has -- and we could always use some more statutes -- does a good job of
    investigating those crimes.
    
        SEN. CANTWELL: Well, we in the Northwest have had a series of violent
    anti-technological terrorist activities. In fact, one was associated with the
    University of Washington and a bombing that took place there. But during that
    time period, one of the special agents in charge of the FBI's Seattle office
    basically responded to the challenge, saying we don't have an organizational
    structure to attack, no finances, no memberships, no meetings. And so part of
    the issue was that so much of this is the organizations basically exist online
    or you don't have a lot of information about it. So I think at least in that
    person's mind, that additional resources or new laws might be considered. So I
    don't know if you have a comment on that.
    
        MR. MUELLER: I think it's where the privacy rights of individuals intersect
    with the -- perhaps intersect with the desire and the requirements of
    appropriate law enforcement. I am not familiar with the specific facts of that
    case and I'm not familiar with the specific investigative tools that that
    special agent is addressing in saying that we could use more, and I'm not
    certain whether what we seek is unavailable under the current statutes.
    
        SEN. CANTWELL: We would be happy to provide you information that we 
    have, but
    it would be submitting a further question on that.
    
        To Carnivore specifically, there's been so much concern about how this 
    issue
    has been approached. And I don't know if you saw yesterday's New York Times
    article about the organized crime case and the concerns about privacy 
    there, but
    one of the issues that has been raised is what the new process has been in 
    which
    the FBI undertook the investigation in this case against Mr. Scarfo's
    business. And basically the FBI has used a new key logger system that is 
    calling
    into question -- and I guess I would frame this in the perspective of this is
    the second time we've seen in a court case the violation of privacy.
    
        In fact, Justice Scalia was quoted in the article basically saying, What
    limits are upon this power of technology to shrink the realm of guaranteed
    privacy? and that the court has to confront this fundamental issue.
    
        So my question is, are you going to make available the information 
    about how
    this key logger technology worked?
    
        MR. MUELLER: I'm not familiar with that new technology, have not had 
    occasion
    to use it in our district. I read the same article that the senator read, with
    interest, because it was the first I'd ever heard if it. Until I know more 
    about
    it, I really don't think I can commit one way or the other.
    
        I do believe when there are advances in technology that it is important to
    balance the privacy interests affected with the investigative take that you
    might get from that technology. I'm not familiar with the circumstances of this
    case and I'm not familiar with the technology.
    
        SEN. CANTWELL: Well, given that there was a lot of concern about the 
    FBI's --
    the fact that what happens in searching for this information using the 
    Carnivore
    system is that so much information is gathered. Now the FBI has switched to 
    this
    key logger system, and the public and the concern of privacy advocates of what
    system is being used, and when you say to somebody you're covering every
    keystroke that was used by this individual -- and maybe people aren't very
    empathetic to Mr. Scarfo's situation, but there might be somebody down the road
    that they would be very empathetic that every keystroke was being tracked.
    
        Do you plan to review Carnivore when you take over as FBI director?
    
        MR. MUELLER: I have already had meetings with privacy groups on it; I 
    have --
    and will continue to look at it and evaluate it and hope to, down the road, 
    that
    the technology overtakes the necessity for using it. I would make the point,
    however, that --
    
        SEN. CANTWELL: So is that a -- would you have a formal review of it?
    
        MR. MUELLER: There has already been a -- I would look at the formal reviews
    that have already been done to determine whether there is a necessity for doing
    another formal review. My understanding is that the information that 
    DCS-1000 is
    utilized for is done generally, for the most part; and it may be as much as 75
    or 80 percent of the time, if not 90 percent of the time, by the Internet
    service provider itself, which has that technology. So the DCS-1000 is for that
    particular smaller ISP that does not have the technology, and that every time
    that it is used -- and it's been used very seldom -- I understand it is used
    pursuant to court order. So there are protections, I believe.
        And likewise with the logger system. I'm not certain that it was -- I 
    am not
    certain of the facts of the case, but I am more comfortable and would -- where
    there is the court that is directing the use of it and supervising the use of
    the new technology, and I'm not certain whether that was the case pursuant to,
    say, a search warrant in the case that was reflected in the papers yesterday.
    
        SEN. CANTWELL: Well, just as in wiretapping, I don't know that it 
    bothers the
    general public that the phone company has access to the phone lines or that the
    ISP has access to that data. What they're very concerned about is that a law
    enforcement agency might have free access to that information, and that it's
    being collected in a way might give them more information, or the information
    about other individuals that happened to have communicated. So I hope that that
    review, whether formal or informal, is something, Mr. Chairman, that this
    committee continues to be involved with the FBI director on.
    
        MR. MUELLER: I'm sorry, I was just, if I might, one last -- I was passed a
    note indicating that -- and I was unaware of it -- that DOJ is conducting a
    review now, and which I certainly would look at, once the Department of Justice
    has completed its review.
    
        SEN. CANTWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    
        SEN. LEAHY: I think Senator Cantwell raises a very good question. I 
    mean, in
    an era of encryption, we don't want some of these new technologies to be the
    back-door clipper chip that we have already said we were opposed to.
    
        This committee was quite concerned when Carnivore first came to our 
    attention
    because we felt that the FBI had gone well beyond what all of us had agreed to
    could be done under the law.
    
        So, I understand we're all moving in a new technology, and we're looking at
    it. But with some of the Fourth Amendment and other issues that come up here, I
    think you should anticipate that there will be increased oversight from the
    committee on these aspects and increased concern on -- again, on both sides of
    the aisle. And I appreciate your answers here this morning.
    
        Senator Kohl of Wisconsin.
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Aug 03 2001 - 08:35:12 PDT