PREFACE In 1961, the subcommittee initiated an inquiry into the telephone monitoring practices of Federal departments and agencies in the Washington area. Two reports resulted from this major survey on monitoring, the first ever conducted by the Congress: House Report No. 1215 "Availability of Information from Federal Departments and Agencies (Telephone Monitoring)," 87th Congress, first session; and House Report No. 1898-"Availability of Information from Federal Departments and Agencies (Telephone Monitoring-Second Review)", 87th Congress, second session. The study on monitoring does not include third party interception of telephone conversationsso-called wiretapping-usually by a Government official charged with law enforcement. As an enormous exchange of information among Government agencies and between agencies and the public often takes place over the telephone, monitoring practices and policies form an integral part of the basic Government information policies and practices which the subcommittee has had under surveillance for the last 16 years. The purpose of the subcommittee's investigation was twofold: to evaluate the efficiency and economy of monitoring operations, and to consider the propriety of the practice. On the latter, House Report 1215 concluded, in part: as practiced by Federal agencies, telephone monitoring * **"is the indication of a dangerous drift toward a huge bureaucracy peering over the shoulder of the citizen." The report stated further: Nearly every Government agency permits telephone monitoring; most of them rationalize it as an aid to efficiency. When monitoring is done secretly and becomes eavesdropping, however, the bureaucracy is sacrificing principle on the altar of efficiency. No matter what the excuse, there is something mean and unprincipled in a Government official's arranging for a secretary-or a transcribing machine-to eavesdrop on telephone calls. It is evidence of a cavalier disregard for the rights of others when most Federal agencies have absolutely no regulations controlling telephone monitoring and eavesdropping. If efficiency is a valid excuse for telephone monitoring, the practice should be permitted in Government agencies only under clear, written guidelines, and those guidelines should not permit unannounced telephone eavesdropping, either by a secretary or by recording equipment. An initial survey indicates a large number of Government telephones are equipped with transmitter cutoff switches or with listening-in circuits, and the cost is added to the monthly telephone bill which is paid out of the taxpayers' pocket. No matter what arguments are made-in the name of The report criticized the lack of regulations governing monitoring practices and recommended: 1. Every Government agency should control telephone monitoring by clear, written regulations. 2. The regulations should ban telephone eavesdropping. 3. The regulations should ban use of recording devices unless there is advance notice to the other party. 4. The regulations should clearly specify that advance notice must be given whenever a secretary or any other person is placed on the line for any purpose whatsoever. In October 1961 the subcommittee followed up its initial inquiry of June 1961 by sending a comprehensive telephone monitoring questionnaire to 57 agencies. The ensuing committee review report (H. Rept. 1898, 87th Cong., second sess.) concluded that as the result of its first report, telephone monitoring regulations had been adopted by some 40 agencies, that 747 recording and listening devices had been removed from Government telephones at a savings of $6,000 a year, that the situation is dangerous in those agencies whose halfway regulations permit unannounced telephone monitoring by secretaries, and that most dangerous of all is the unregulated monitoring practiced by those Federal agencies which still assert a bureaucratic right to snoop. Recurrent inquiries about the Government's monitoring activities along with growing concern about reported eavesdropping on Government calls by telephone companies led to a decision to bring the subcommittee's survey and study up to date. This was done by sending a questionnaire (see p. 1) to the principal Federal departments and agencies. A staff summary of this third survey on monitoring practices covering fiscal year 1970 appears on pages 6 to 7. A preliminary analysis of the responses reveals that 52 of the 60 agencies queried allow secretaries to listen in on the telephone calls of citizens doing business with the Government. A number of agencies also use electronic machines to record such conversations. Current regulations generally seem to be responsive to earlier subcommittee recommendations, but the practice of telephone eavesdropping continues at about the same level as a decade ago. It remains a fact that until the practice of monitoring is abolished, a citizen will never be able to know for sure to what extent, or for what underlying motive, he is unwittingly sharing his telephone calls with silent listeners. In regard to the reported eavesdropping on Government calls by private telephone companies, the subcommittee requested the American Telephone & Telegraph Company to explain its policies and practices on monitoring. In essence, the company denied that the Bell System monitors customer-to-customer conversations, but acknowledged that it does indulge in "service observing" practices which could include calls to Federal agencies and departments and congressional offices. The subcommittee's query to the American Telephone & Telegraph Co. and the company's detailed response appear in the appendix. JOHN E. Moss, Chairman, Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommittee. |