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