Time: Mon Sep 15 04:52:30 1997 by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA25462; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 04:44:24 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 04:44:06 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: U.S. House Panel Approves Encryption Limits <snip> > >>From Reuters >Subject: US House Panel Approves Encryption Limits > >Friday September 12 2:28 PM EDT > >US House Panel Approves Encryption Limits > >WASHINGTON - The House Select Intelligence Committee on Thursday passed a >substitute bill that if enacted would for the first time impose sweeping >domestic restrictions on use of computer encoding technology. > >The committee voted in a closed session on the substitute to a bill >authored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia, that began as an >effort to prevent domestic restrictions and relax export limits on >encryption technology. > >But the legislation faces as uncertain future, as other committees have >passed different versions of the bill. > >Less than two months ago, opponents of strict U.S. export controls on >encryption announced that they had the support of a majority of the House >for a bill to eliminate most restrictions. > >But since then, the Clinton administration stepped up its lobbying >campaign, sending the heads of the FBI and the National Security Agency to >Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers in classified hearings on the dangers posed >by free export of encryption. > >Encryption, which can be included in everything from telephones to >electronic mail software, uses mathematical formulas to scramble >information and protect it from snoopers, hackers, or criminals. The >technology is an increasingly critical means of securing electronic >commerce and global communications on the Internet. > >On Tuesday, the House National Security Committee gutted the bill to relax >export controls. An amendment to tighten export controls passed on a 45 to >one vote, with more than a dozen backers of the original bill voting for >the more- stringent restrictions. > >On Thursday, lawmakers offered further amendments in the Select >Intelligence Committee and the Commerce Committee which would impose >domestic controls on the use of encryption, currently unregulated with the >United States. > >The amendments would require all encryption manufacturers to include a >feature allowing the government to decode any message covertly. The >proposals also would require network operators, Internet providers and >phone companies to ensure that any encryption services they provide to >customers can be cracked by law enforcement agencies. > >FBI director Louis Freeh has said such legislation is needed to allow law >enforcement agencies to continue to tap conversations of criminals and >terrorists as encryption spreads. > >But the high-tech industry countered that the technology to allow >eavesdropping would increase the vulnerability and raise the cost of all >electronic messages sent by law-abiding citizens and businesses, while >criminals would disable the back doors. > >And Internet user groups and civil libertarians said such domestic >restrictions are likely to lead to Orwellian infringements of citizen's >right to privacy. Some argue the restriction are unconstitutional. > >Copyright, Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved > ># # # ======================================================================== 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