Time: Wed Aug 13 18:57:11 1997 by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA27070; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 12:56:10 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 12:55:00 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Don't Let Janet Reno Read Our E-mail (fwd) <snip> > August 13, 1997 > >The personal privacy of individual American citizens >is rapidly eroding on every front. Advancing >technology has made it easier for government >agencies, the police, credit bureaus, telemarketers, >and all sorts of nosy people to monitor where we are, >who we associate with, how we spend our money, who we >talk to on the telephone, and what medical care we >receive. > >With business computers and government bureaucracies >constantly compiling data about our comings and >goings, encryption is a wonderful technology that can >enable us to get back some of our privacy. Encryption >locks up your messages so that only the intended >recipients, each of whom has his own key, can unlock >them, and you can carry on a cell-phone conversation >without snooping from scanners. > >Once encrypted, your phone conversations and E-mail >will sound or look like gibberish to everyone except >those who have the key to decrypt it. We look forward >to the day when encryption technology will be just as >common as sealing an envelope before you mail it. > >Encryption has become a hot political issue. Most of >us want control over our own encryption keys, just as >we demand and expect control over the keys to our >homes. > >Civil liberties groups correctly assert that we have >a First and Fourth Amendment right to speak in a >manner of our own choosing and to be secure from >government searches. Just as we have the right to >speak in Spanish or Greek as well as in English, we >have a right to speak in code on our computer or on >our cell phone so that our messages and conversations >will be private. > >But Bill Clinton and Al Gore want to regulate >encryption. The Clinton Administration has come up >with plans to control encryption, variously called >"clipper," "key escrow," "key recovery," or "key >management infrastructure." > >These plans have been rejected by consumers, >industry, those who believe in civil liberties and >the free market, and even the Europeans. Only the >U.S. Senate takes the Clinton plan seriously. > >Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Bob Kerrey (D-NE) >have introduced the Secure Public Networks Act, >S.909, which is a direct attack on the Bill of Rights >as well as on our right to privacy. To avoid coping >with arguments against it, they rushed it through the >Senate Commerce Committee without any publicity. > >S. 909 gives the FBI and other government agencies >the ability to seize your cryptographic keys. The >bill's advocates assert that the government is merely >trying to maintain the status quo, and that civil >liberties are protected because court orders are >required before the government can get your keys. > >That's false. S. 909 overturns the status quo and >gives government agencies the practical power to >pervasively monitor electronic communications in a >way they cannot now. As originally drafted by the >Clinton Administration, S. 909 would have allowed >government agents to seize private keys without a >court order or search warrant, and even without >notice to the individual whose privacy is violated. > >Supporters of S. 909 added a fuzzy one-sentence >amendment to the bill in committee and claim it now >guarantees full protection of our constitutional >rights. Critics of the bill believe it takes more >than a single sentence to paper over the bill's >enormous dangers to personal liberty. > >Supporters of the bill say the government-mandated >key escrow system would be "voluntary." That's also >false. A panoply of federal regulations, federal >purchasing policies, criminal penalties, and civil >liability exposure would effectively force any >business of any size to use the government system, >and all the business's customers would have to follow >suit. > >The bill would also make a type of government >regulated electronic ID code effectively mandatory >for doing business. To get the ID, you would have to >buy into the government system. > >FBI Director Louis Freeh is passionately eager to >have a law that lets his agents seize private keys >without a court order. He speaks ominously about what >he calls "the looming spectre of the widespread use >of robust, virtually uncrackable encryption." > >Freeh compares encryption to fast cars, saying, >"Would we allow a car to be driven with features >which would evade and outrun police cars?" Maybe >he'll try to ban Corvettes when he finds out how fast >they can go. > >This is the same Louis Freeh who last year proposed >that one percent of the telephone capacity in urban >areas be reserved for wiretaps (that's 10,000 phones >in a city of one million). Even the KGB and the >Gestapo didn't reach that level of surveillance. > >Sensible people are not persuaded by Freeh's alarmist >speeches. Last year, the National Research Council >Commission concluded that national security arguments >for controlling encryption are increasingly outdated, >and that the ability of the private sector to >transfer confidential financial and other data over >telecommunications pathways without interception is a >higher priority than government wiretapping. > >No free nation has ever tried to regulate or snoop on >the content of private messages until the Clinton >Administration. The crucial political question is >whether law-abiding Americans will be able to secure >their own keys, giving them only to persons of their >own choosing, or whether we will be forced to >surrender our keys to government surveillance agents. > > > Phyllis Schlafly column 8-13-97 > >-------------------------------------- >EAGLE FORUM >PO Box 618 >Alton, IL 62002 >Phone: 618-462-5415 >Fax: 618-462-8909 > >******************************* >Our site features: > >Phyllis Schlafly Columns >The Phyllis Schlafly Report >Education Reporter >******************************* > URL: http://www.eagleforum.org >E-mail: eagle@eagleforum.org >________________________________ >Get on our E-mail list today! >Just send an e-mail message to >eagle@eagleforum.org with >SUBSCRIBE in the subject line! >________________________________ > > >----- End Included Message ----- > > > > >----- End Included Message ----- > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe, email >majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: > subscribe ignition-point > or > unsubscribe ignition-point > http://ic.net/~celano/ip/ > > ======================================================================== 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