Civil rights attorneys, public defenders, privacy activists and some lawmakers warn that a state proposal to expand a 1968 wiretapping law would be an unnecessary and dangerous overreach of government surveillance.
The law currently limits wiretapping to situations linked to “organized crime," which involve an “enterprise to supply illegal goods and services.” Gov. Charlie Baker last month filed a bill to update the statute, saying that law enforcement should be able to use the tool to investigate other crimes, including murder, rape and trafficking. On Tuesday, the state Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a three-hour virtual public hearing to discuss the proposal.
Opponents included Kade Crockford, speaking on behalf of the ACLU of Massachusetts, who said the measure could have “far-reaching negative effects and open up a Pandora's box of potential unintended consequences, including political harassment and intimidation.”
Harvey Silverglate, a Cambridge-based civil rights attorney, said the current law appropriately focuses on the “most dangerous” of criminals.
"None of us would want to live in a society where virtually any citizen fears a vast intrusion into his or her privacy" because somebody reported allegations of criminal activity to authorities, he said.
Supporters of the bill include an array of state prosecutors and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who said changes are long overdue.
Col. Christopher Mason, commander of the Massachusetts State Police, told lawmakers that the bill would help law enforcement secure justice for "victims of some of the most heinous crimes” without jeopardizing people’s privacy rights. “Victims will be better served and Massachusetts will be a safer state,’’ he said.
Mason said the proposal would not change a requirement of the existing law that allows only officials from Office of the Attorney General or district attorneys to request permission from a Superior Court judge to wiretap a target. The law also requires petitioners to assert that they’ve exhausted other efforts before resorting to surveillance.
“These requests are not common and are our last resort,’’ he said.
It's unclear whether the bill will get enough support to get out of committee. Some lawmakers privately voiced skepticism, particularly because of the lack of support among civil liberties groups, lawmakers or people of color.
Prosecutors who support the legislature urged lawmakers to find consensus. If they don’t like the wording of the bill, they said, find ways to make it better. Others urged lawmakers to change nothing at all. Crockford testified that the government already has more tools to track and monitor suspects, including obtaining warrants to obtain GPS data and private text messages.
“Monitoring the content of personal communication is a tool that is best suited to identifying and disrupting serious criminal activity that is coordinated among multiple parties, which is exactly what the current statute enables,’’ she said. "ACLU of Massachusetts respectfully asks the committee to recommend that this legislation not pass.”
