From: nobody@jarthur.cs.hmc.edu
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 94 18:17:36 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Decoding the Electronic Future
Message-ID: <9403090217.AA28982@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


US News & World Report
Copyright, 1994, U.S. News & World Report All rights reserved.
U.S.NEWS & WORLD REPORT, MARCH 14, 1994

DECODING THE ELECTRONIC FUTURE

By Vic Sussman

WILL ENCRYPTION SECURE OR DENY PRIVACY RIGHTS? Would you hand over a
spare set of house keys to your local police to help them fight crime,
trusting that they would never enter your home without good reason?
According to opponents of the so-called Clipper chip, a powerful new
telecommunications encoding device, that is an apt metaphor for what
the White House, the FBI and the supersecret National Security Agency
are asking of a gullible American public. Clipper backers insist the
innovation will not only help in an increasingly desperate fight
against crime but actually give Americans more privacy than ever.

   The Clipper controversy--which has sparked frenzied debate and
angry protests in recent weeks--swirls around a small sliver of
silicon that can be built into telephones. Ordinary phones can be
tapped with anything from cheap scanners to quaint-tech alligator
clips. But Clipper phones use encryption technology to scramble voice,
fax, electronic mail and other data transmissions into digital
gibberish. Only other Clipper phones can unscramble the information,
which makes the Clipper an untappable system. Well, almost.

   A phone that can't be tapped is every cop's nightmare, because
anyone from drug traffickers to terrorists would be able to scheme and
plot with impunity. So under a plan hatched by the NSA and backed by
the White House, government agents would be able to unscramble
Clipper's secret code by using two mathematical keys. To guard against
abuse, the keys would be held by two government agencies. Authorities
would first have to get a warrant--standard wiretap procedure--before
obtaining the decoders.

   Key escrow, as it's called, may sound good on paper, but critics
maintain it will be both invasive and ineffectual. In addition,
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont maintains that Clipper is a
``misstep in export policy.'' U.S. companies would have a tough time
selling compromised telecommunications products overseas and
consequently would have to manufacture both domestic and foreign
versions, an expensive proposition. IBM, Apple, Microsoft and the
Software Publishers Association, among many others, oppose Clipper.
Leahy's Technology and the Law Subcommittee is planning March hearings
on these issues.

HISTORY'S SHADOW. Critics are also doubtful that Clipper's decoding
keys will be sufficient to deter government recklessness, pointing to
past abuses by the FBI, NSA and CIA. But Georgetown University
computer scientist Dorothy Denning contends that much more stringent
controls against illegal eavesdropping exist today. ``The greater
danger,'' she insists, ``is losing the ability to wiretap, giving
organized crime and terrorism the advantage.'' Law enforcement
authorities also say they are looking for no more authority than they
already have--to make lawful requests to have the telecommunications
industry cooperate in crime prevention. But Marc Rotenberg, Washington
director of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, a
public-interest group that has collected more than 50,000 signatures
on an anti-Clipper petition, doesn't buy that argument. In fact, he
says, the government has admitted the system could be easily breached
by the NSA, which wouldn't need a warrant if it made its demand under
the rubric of national security. Many valid concerns about Clipper,
says Rotenberg, ``are similarly dismissed with the claim of national
security, a dangerous way to design our civilian communications
infrastructure.''

   The Clipper chip has been proposed as a voluntary standard. But
once the Internal Revenue Service, the Pentagon and other agencies
order tens of thousands of Clipper phones, it will be impossible to do
government business using any other equipment. Indeed, the biggest
fear raised by Clipper is that it is the digital camel's nose under
the electronic tent. Another White House proposal, for instance, would
require that all future telecommunications systems--everything from
phones to online services--be ``wiretap friendly,'' says Jerry Berman,
executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Even the
most vociferous Clipper opponents concede a legitimate need for
electronic surveillance, but many would like to see Congress rather
than agencies like the NSA determine the proper balance of government
needs and individual rights.

   Cliff Stoll, whose book THE CUCKOO'S EGG focused attention on
computer espionage, thinks the Clipper controversy is overblown by
both sides. In fact, he contends, the typical telephone or computer
user doesn't need any encryption more powerful than pig Latin.

   Erhaps-pay.