From: Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.cs.hmc.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 May 94 19:06:37 PDT
To: cypherpunks list <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Baker Rebuke (LONG! BASIC, Vet's Ignore)
In-Reply-To: <199405151637.AA15166@access1.digex.net>
Message-ID: <9405160206.AA18914@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
>    The administration has said time and again
>    that it will not force key escrow on manufacturers and companies in
>    the private sector. In a Catch-22 response, critics then insist that
>    if key escrow isn't mandated it won't work.
>  
> Again, this presupposes a trust in government.  If you look at the words 
> in the original announcements, this is NOT what the government says 
> either.  They insist that their program will be voluntary, and there are 
> "currently no plans" to enforce a ban on other encryption.

Hey, don't let him off this easily.  The administration *has* proposed
banning strong encryption.  They are now soft-pedaling this.
IMHO, the single worst aspect of `Clipper' is that it creates an
environment within which such a ban is more palatable.  "All citizens
have encryption available to them, readable only by authorized Peace
Officers.  So restrictions on non-Clipper encryption only harm child
molestors and drug kingpins.  You're not a child molestor or a drug
kingpin, are you?"

Cites on banning encryption:

From the original announcement, 16 April 1993:
|Q:  If the Administration were unable to find a technological
|solution like the one proposed, would the Administration be willing
|to use legal remedies to restrict access to more powerful encryption
|devices? 
|A:  This is a fundamental policy question which will be considered
|during the broad policy review.  [ed.: this review has since been
|scuttled] ... [the U.S. is not saying] that `every American, as a
|matter of right, is entitled to an unbreakable commercial encryption
|product.' ...

Washington Times, 17 April 1993, "Government picks affordable chip
to scramble phone calls":
|An administration official said consideration will be given to
|banning more sophisticated systems investigators cannot crack,
|thereby creating a balance between banning private encryption and
|declaring a public right to unbreakable coded communications.

Washington Post, 30 May 1993, "Chipping Away At Privacy?", pages H1, H4:
|Administration sources say that if the current plan doesn't enable
|the NSA and FBI to keep on top of the technology, then Clinton is
|prepared to introduce legislation to require use of its encryption
|technology, which is crackable by the NSA, and to ban use of the
|uncrackable gear.
|
|"It's an option on the table," said a White House official.

Network World, 7 June 1993, p. 6:
|NIST Deputy Director Ray Kammer said the government is considering
|banning all other encryption and making Clipper Chip mandatory.
(no context for this quote; take it for what it's worth)

   Eli   ebrandt@hmc.edu