From: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 19:08:45 +0800
To: "Dave Banisar" <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Freeh Testimony 7/25/96
In-Reply-To: <n1373804503.42138@epic.org>
Message-ID: <v03007804ae1e2226c5ed@[192.187.162.15]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 4:03 PM -0700 7/25/96, Dave Banisar wrote:
>This is the written testimony of FBI Director Freeh before the
>Senate Commerce Committee on S 1726, the Pro-Code legislation.
>
>Freeh called for the adoption of an universal key escrow system
>that would facilitate law enforcement access.Several Senators were
>critical of Freeh's testimony and asked why
>he and the other panelists believed that savy criminals would
>use escrowed encryption.

They cannot have read his prepared statement, which addresses this issue
(see below). Neither, apparently did you, Dave, or you would not leave the
misleading impression Freeh didn't address this topic. Were you being
sloppy? Mendacious?

>Others questioned the possibility to any
>kind of world wide agreement could be reached.

Not valid. No sooner did Europeans reject the idea of the US as escrow
holder then they set busily to work developing their own standard. There's
no reason the US couldn't go along with what THEY decide (and trust me,
judging on form it will be more Draconian that what the US would have
created).

>
>Director Freeh admitted in responding to one Senator that he would
>seek legislation to ban non-escrow cryptography if it were not
>widely adopted. He said, "we are not at the point yet that volutary
>is not vialble. At that point, we would look at mandatory controls."
>He also stated that he would also ask for import controls to be
>imposed "if the country was flooded with foreign robust encryption."

This is consistent with Netanyahu's recent book on terrorism, except that
Freeh apparently doesn't include the civil liberties protections suggested
by Netanyahu. I'm surprised. Freeh is said to be a very smart man--he must
know that if he included those protections as an integral part of his
advocacy it would go down much better with the American people. Failure so
to do raises the most serious questions.

>
>A html version of this document is available at
>
>http://www.epic.org/crypto/export_controls/freeh.html


Thanks;

David

>
>
>------------
>
>
>	U.S. Department of Justice
>	Federal Bureau of Investigation
>	Office of the Director		Washington, D.C 20535
>
>STATEMENT
>OF
>LOUIS J. FREEH
>DIRECTOR
>FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ON
>JULY 25, 1996
>BEFORE THE
>COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
>UNITED STATES SENATE
>REGARDING
>IMPACT OF ENCRYPTION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY
>

...

> It is worth noting that we have never contended that a key
>escrow regime, whether voluntarily or mandatorily implemented, would
>prevent all criminals from obtaining non-key escrowed encryption
>products.  But even criminals need to communicate with others nationally
>and internationally, including not just their criminal confederates but
>also legitimate organizations such as banks. Accessible, key escrow
>encryption products clearly will be used by most if widely available,
>inexpensive, easy to use, and interoperable worldwide.