Time: Sun Jul 13 08:45:47 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA01236;
Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:50:53 -0700 (MST)
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA13702;
Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:50:46 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:50:29 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Comments Concerning DigitalEra Pro-CODE Act (fwd)
<snip>
>
>John Ashcroft wrote:
>>
>> Dear On-line friend:
>>
>> I hope the following editorial is of interest to you. If
>> you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact my office.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> John Ashcroft
>> U.S. Senate
>>
>> Investor's Business Daily
>>
>> Encryption: Keep Feds' Nose Out Of The Net by U.S. Senator John
>> Ashcroft
>>
>> Date: 7/11/97
>>
>> Edgar Hoover would have loved this. The Clinton administration wants
>> government to be able to read international computer
>> communications - financial transactions, personal E-mail and
>> proprietary information sent abroad - all in the name of national
>> security.
>>
>> In a proposal that raises obvious concerns about Americans' privacy,
>> President Clinton wants to give agencies the keys for decoding all
>> exported U.S. software and Internet communications.
>> Such a policy also would tamper with the competitive advantage that
>> our U.S. software companies currently enjoy in the field of
>> encryption technology.
>>
>> Not only would Big Brother be looming over the shoulders of
>> international cybersurfers, he also threatens to render our
>> state-of-the-art computer software engineers obsolete and unemployed.
>>
>> Granted, the Internet could be used to commit crimes, and advanced
>> encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide
>> the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited
>> wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian
>> capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications
>> across the Web?
>>
>> The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to
>> protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value.
>>
>> The president has proposed that American companies and computer users
>> supply the government with decryption keys to high-level encryption
>> programs. Yet European software producers are free to produce computer
>> encryption codes of all levels of security without providing keys to
>> any government authority.
>>
>> Buyers of encryption software value security above all else. They will
>> ultimately choose airtight encryption programs - not those for which
>> the U.S. government maintains keys.
>>
>> In spite of this obvious fact, the president is trying to foist his
>> rigid policy on the exceptionally fluid and fast-paced computer
>> industry. Furthermore, recent developments in decryption technology
>> cast doubt on the wisdom of any government meddling in this industry.
>>
>> Two weeks ago, the 56-bit algorithm government standard encryption
>> code that protects most U.S. electronic financial transactions, from
>> ATM cards to wire transfers, was broken by a low-powered 90-megahertz
>> Pentium processor.
>>
>> In 1977, when this code was first approved by the U.S. government as a
>> standard, it was deemed unbreakable. And for good reason -
>> there are 72 quadrillion different combinations in a 56-bit code.
>> However, with today's technology, these 72 quadrillion different
>> combinations can each be tried -it's only a matter of time and
>> determination.
>>
>> Two days after this encryption code was broken, however, the Senate
>> Commerce Committee voted, in accordance with administration policy, to
>> force American software companies to perpetuate this already
>> compromised 56-bit encryption system.
>>
>> Meanwhile, 128- bit encryption software from European firms is
>> available to every Web user. Interestingly, European firms can import
>> this supersecure encryption technology (originally developed by
>> Americans) to the U.S., but U.S. companies are forbidden by law from
>> exporting these same programs to other countries.
>>
>> So to move forward with the president's policy or the Commerce
>> Committee's bill would be an act of folly, creating a cadre of
>> government peeping Toms and causing severe damage to our vibrant
>> software industries. Government would be caught in a perpetual game of
>> catch-up with whiz-kid code-breakers and industry advances.
>>
>> Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., has signaled his objection to
>> both proposals. He and I would like to work to bring to the floor a
>> version of the encryption legislation by Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont.
>> Burns' bill closely resembles the popular House encryption bill
>> sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R- Va. Both measures would not
>> require sharing of keys with the government.
>>
>> In essence, these proposals would give U.S. encryption software
>> manufacturers the freedom to compete on equal footing in the worldwide
>> marketplace. They would set up a quasi-governmental board for the
>> industry to decide encryption bit strength based on the current level
>> of international technology.
>>
>> U.S. companies are on the front line of online technologies - the
>> value- added industries of the future.
>>
>> The best policy for encryption technology is one that can rapidly
react
>> to breakthroughs in decoding capability and roll back encryption
limits
>> as needed. The Burns and Goodlatte proposals would accomplish this. In
>> contrast, the Clinton administration's unnecessary and invasive
>> interest in international E-mail is a wholly unhealthy precedent,
>> especially given this administration's track record on FBI files and
>> Internal Revenue Service snooping.
>>
>> Every medium by which people communicate can be exploited by those
>> with illegal or immoral intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to
>> hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our E-mail diaries, open our ATM
>> records or translate our international communications.
>>
>>
>> (C) Copyright 1997 Investors Business Daily,Inc.
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail