// COMPLETE THREAD

FOIA- New Docs Reveal Criticisms of FBI Cost-Benefit Analysis of DT

1 expanded post ยท every known parent and child

NODE 483f2502FOIA- New Docs Reveal Criticisms of FBI Cost-Benefit Analysis of DT
* May 22, 1992 memo from the White House:

"The analysis should make consistent assumptions with respect to 
both costs and benefits.  The benefits analysis should reflect 
clearly that only some cases  involve electronic surveillance; 
that some surveillance could continue in the absence of this 
legislation (at least for some period of years); and that some 
convictions could probably still be obtained absent surveillance." 
...

"The analysis does not consider the existence of or the potential 
for other forms of surveillance that might compensate for the 
reduction in telephone wiretapping capabilities." ...

"On p. 4 and p. 6, certain figures representing 'prevented
potential economic loss' are cited.  Please explain what losses 
are encompassed in those figures and how they are calculated."


------------------------------------------------------

* May 22, 1992 memo from Office of the Vice President:

"In several places in the analysis, figures are cited without 
reference to their sources or to how they were derived.  For 
example, on p. 4 a figure of $1.8 billion is cited for potential 
economic loss. ..."

------------------------------------------------------

* May 26, 1992 memo from Treasury Department:

"It is difficult to do a critical analysis of DOJ's cost benefit
package without a full explanation of how DOJ arrived at its
cost/benefit figures, and what costs and benefits were included in
those figures. It is not clear that DOJ knows, or could know, all
the costs and benefits involved, but this should be clearly
stated."


------------------------------------------------------

In addition to these new documents, industry officials at a
Congressional hearing on March 18 sharply questioned the FBI's figures.
Roy Neel, President of the US Telephone Association, disputed the FBI's
figures that the bill would only cost around 300 million, citing that
just revising call forwarding would cost an estimated $1.8 billion.
  
   ----------------------------------------------------------------