The prohibition of 18 U.S.C. § 2512 of the mailing, distribution, "advertising, etc、 of intercept devices needs to be expanded to cover schemes to intercept electronic communications (e.g., plans and specifications for building and installing a wiretap).

Consideration should be given to adding to line 9

on page 5 "Section 2510(5)(a)." If this change is made, Section 2510(10) could be reworded to state that a provider of electronic communication service shall include a common carrier under 47 U.S.C. § 153(h).

Section 2511(1)(b) should be amended by the

insertion of "electronic or" before "oral."

Changes are made in the prohibition of unauthorized accessing of electronic communication or the obtaining or altering of stored data. As revised, this important section continues to be confusing and fails to prohibit denials of service and the obtaining or altering of portions of stored communications. Moreover, it does not require that

authorizing users be themselves authorized and acting within the scope of their authorization. Inserting the phrase

inconsistent with the objective of reaching hackers who alter software. Our version would read:

(3) Unless authorized by the person or entity providing

an electronic communication service or by a user of
that service acting within the scope of authority
granted by such person or entity, and except as
otherwise authorized in section 2516 of this title,
whoever (i) willfully accesses an electronic
communication system through which such service is
provided or willfully exceeds an authorization to
access that electronic communication service and
(ii) obtains, alters, or interrupts or prevents
access to, an electronic communication, in whole or
in part, while the communication is stored in the
system shall

The bill prohibits, with specified exceptions, a provider of electronic communications service from divulging the "contents" of any communication carried over the service. The last exception substantially emasculates the prohibition by permitting disclosure by the provider "for a business activity related to a service provided by the

of the electronic communication service." [Emphasis

supplied.]

This may be tantamount to permitting any

disclosures the provider chooses to make in the ordinary

course of its business. The exception should be restricted to permitting disclosure only to an authorized originator or the intended recipient(s) of the communication or their agents.

Two additional exceptions should be added to the prohibition against disclosing certain electronic service provider records to governmental authority:

a)

communications constituting an abuse of service or

other illegal act (e.g., obscene calls, theft of communication service, computer abuse).

b)

communications indicating a threat to life or

property (e.g., a missing child calls for
assistance or an elderly person collapses while
talking to an operator).

We also suggest that exception (C) on page 9 be

(C) pursuant to a court order under a statute

specifically authorizing such an order, provided

that notice of the order has been given by the

governmental authority to the persons who are the object of the investigation.

The service provider should not be burdened with a court imposed obligation to give such notice.

Civil damages should be available when one's stored electronic communication is obtained, altered and when one's access to it is interrupted or prevented. (See suggested AT&T wording for Section 102(a) of the bill.)

We suggest that consideration be given to adding to

the list of crimes: violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1030
(computer crimes) and 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (interception of
electronic and oral communications).

Section 201 Draft P. 16

The word "initiated" should be substituted for "completed" on line 10. (See similar suggestion on Section

The revisions on page 20 contain the gratuitous provision that a service provider "is not required to make such disclosure [of the use of a pen register] at any time." This language could be used in arguing that by implication there is a legal obligation for the service provider to eventually give such notice in cases where a statute does not excuse it. We recommend that the language

Section 3136(a) of the new chapter on pen registers and tracking devices requires the Judge to whom a pen register installation application has been made to cause notice to be served upon affected persons. This corresponds with the notice requirement of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518 (8) (d). AT&T strongly believes both sections must be clarified to indicate that the notice is to be given by the person or entity who applied for the order. This is the approach mandated by the Right to Financial Privacy Act. See

The use of the word "inventory" on lines 11 and 13 is inconsistent with its deletion from Draft page 24,

Lines 12 and 13 appear to be missing a word. We suggest that the "s" be dropped from "registers" and