From: jya@pipeline.com (John Young)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 818f79affc90e72a8e67ce1b8b73b8b337376f27da6cee1b25f5265ff7c11ea9
Message ID: <199610041312.NAA20299@pipe2.ny3.usa.pipeline.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-10-04 17:40:44 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 01:40:44 +0800
From: jya@pipeline.com (John Young)
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 01:40:44 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: NYT Nix GAK
Message-ID: <199610041312.NAA20299@pipe2.ny3.usa.pipeline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
The New York Times, October 4, 1996, p. A32.
A Flawed Encryption Policy [Editorial]
The new White House proposal to keep high-powered
encryption software out of the hands of foreign terrorists
and criminals is needlessly restrictive and probably
unworkable. Though the new plan is better than previous
Administration proposals, it risks doing more harm than
good.
The Administration is rightly worried that foreign
terrorists or criminals will get hold of encryption
software that will make it impossible for the Government to
eavesdrop on their telephone and computer messages. The
technology is legal in this country, but the Administration
wants to keep the powerful new software out of foreign
hands.
However, the Administration downplays the fact that
encryption is also a good way for honest citizens to
prevent crime. At a time when banks and other private
companies send vast amounts of confidential information
over the electronic highway, it would seem sensible to make
high-quality encryption widely available so that the
private sector can protect itself from criminal or
malicious eavesdropping. For that reason, the Government
ought to promote wide-scale dissemination of encryption,
both here and abroad.
Trying to block dissemination is probably useless and
almost certainly harmful to American exports. Powerful
encryption systems made by foreign companies are already
available in Europe and Asia, and American exporters will
need to sell state-of-the-art software to keep competitive.
The Clinton Administration previously proposed that the
computer industry adopt a single type of encryption, known
as key-escrow, which would scramble messages with
mathematical passwords. Under the plan, private companies
and individuals would turn over these passwords to the
Government, which, with court authorization, could use them
to unscramble the phone and computer traffic. The purpose
of key-escrow, then, would be to preserve the Government's
existing ability to tap phone calls.
But that Clinton plan was firmly rejected by industry and
privacy-rights advocates who feared that a government that
held passwords would abuse First Amendment prohibitions
against listening in on private communications. The latest
White House plan addresses many of these concerns. It would
impose restrictions only on the software that exporters
sell abroad. Privacy advocates have less to fear from the
latest plan because it would allow individuals to deposit
their passwords with private organizations, rather than the
Government.
Yet the Administration has not explained why foreigners
would buy American software that would allow the F.B.I. to
eavesdrop when they could buy equally powerful software
from non-American manufacturers that omits any such trap
door. Critics assume that foreign governments -- few of
which pay attention to American constitutional protections
against invasion of privacy -- would demand access to
passwords, making such software unattractive for anyone to
use.
There is room to improve the plan. A panel of the National
Research Council recently concluded that there is no good
reason to restrict exports of currently available
encryption because foreigners already have access to
equally powerful software. There is time to work out
restrictions, in cooperation with the industry and privacy
advocates, for the next generation of encryption software.
In the meantime the Administration might push forward on
the panel's other sensible recommendations -- such as
developing better encryption expertise within the F.B.I.
and helping the private sector develop the encryption
software it needs to stop illegal eavesdropping.
[End]
The National Research Council report is available at:
http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~jya/nrcindex.htm
Return to October 1996
Return to ““Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law” <froomkin@law.miami.edu>”