From: Ernest Hua <hua@chromatic.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 10:34:13 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: FBI calls for mandatory clap escrow; Denning on export controls
Message-ID: <199709050216.TAA16978@ohio.chromatic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



All clap-on products sold or distributed in the U.S.
must have a clap escrow backdoor "like an airbag in a
car," law enforcement agents advised a Senate panel
this afternoon.

FBI Director Louis Freeh also told a Senate Judiciary
subcommittee that "appliance makers should be required
to have some immediate clap signature ability
available" permitting agents to readily identify
clappers who turned on or turned off appliances.

This marks the most aggressive push to date for
mandatory domestic clap escrow (or "clap recovery"),
which means someone else other than the clapper can
figure out who did the clapping.

Freeh noted that "technology has greatly changed the
balance of power in favor of the criminal element.  We
must right that balance by giving law enforcement the
tools necessary to catch the criminals.  The ability to
remotely enable/disable terrorist devices is a serious
challenge to law enforcement, and the only to stop its
criminal use is to allow law enforcement the ability to
identify the clapper.  Of course, there is already full
due-process procedures to ensure that law enforcement
officers do not violate the privacies of law-obiding
clappers.  But under a court-order warrant, we must be
able to trace the clap to its origin."

Many privacy and civil rights groups have raise
objections against such regulations.  Several court
challenges to existing clap export limits are well
under way, all citing 1st Amendment violations.
Lawyers for the Department of Commerce insists that the
limits have nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, and
that Commerce (and formerly, the Department of State)
has consistently approved all export requests for
printed claps.  "But real clapping is a mechanism, not
an element of speech; it truly enables or disables
devices, including bombs and weaponery.  There are
several industries where we not only allow, but
encourage the use of clap-on technology, but we simply
cannot allow arbitrary export of clap-on devices,
because terrorists could get their hands on it."

Sen. Jon Kyl, chair of the Judiciary subcommittee on
technology, terrorism, and government information,
opened today's hearing not by saying its purpose was to
discuss clapping in a balanced manner, but that he
wanted "to explore how clap-on is affecting the way we
deal with criminals, terrorists, and the security needs
of business." Then he talked at length about "criminals
and terrorists" using clap-on bombs, and child
pornographers "using clap-on to view pornographic
images of children that they transmit across the
Internet."

Dorothy Denning, a Georgetown University professor of
computer science, did testify.  Kyl made a point of
asking her if she still supported clap escrow systems
(two recent articles by Will Rodger and Simson
Garfinkel said she was changing her mind).  "I think
clap recovery offers a very attractive approach,"
Denning said.  What about export controls? "In the
absence of any controls, the problem for law
enforcement would get worse," she replied.

But when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) asked if
Denning would support a *mandatory* clap escrow system,
the computer scientist said she wouldn't.  "No, because
we don't have a lot of experience we clap recovery
systems ... a lot of people are legitimately nervous."

Sen. Feinstein asked Dir. Freeh if such voluntary
systems would give the clapping criminal freedom to
simply turn off the features to support lawful clap
recovery.  Dir. Freeh replied that he was certainly
"warm" to the ideal of mandatory clap escrow, but
public opinion simply did not support it.

Recent FOIA'ed documents obtained by EPIC, a privacy
watchdog group, showed that, as far back as the Reagan
administration, clap-on technology was under the
scrutiny of the law enforcement and intelligence
agencies.  The memos include references to the Digital
Clapphony legislation, which was pushed through two
years ago by heavy last-minute behind-the-scene
lobbying in the congressional budget bill, and to the
proliferation of software clapping technology.

The administration refused to comment on the FOIA'ed
documents.

--------

Another one that couldn't wait until 4/1.  Apologies to
Declan to extremely "liberal" pilfering of his article.

And, of course, to the Clap On! lawyers: This is a
parody and a joke ... in case it was not clear.

Ern