From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 05:08:03 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: SF Chronicle on Sen. Dianne Feinstein: "Feinstein Offline"
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.980219125257.9768F-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain





---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 12:52:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: politech@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: SF Chronicle on Sen. Dianne Feinstein: "Feinstein Offline"


****

Feinstein Offline
Her law-and-order stance irks tech industry 
Jon Swartz, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, February 19, 1998 

URL:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/02/19/BU48718.DTL

Despite Silicon Valley's growing economic and political clout, a chorus
of high-tech executives have complained that U.S. Senator Dianne
Feinstein is unresponsive and, at times, hostile to their interests --
especially when it comes to the Internet. 

``She is in the forefront of senators voting against the Internet,''
said Jerry Berman, executive director of the liberal Center for
Democracy and Technology in Washington, D.C. ``On a scale of 1 to 10, in
terms of being on the side of Internet freedom, she gets a 1.'' 

Feinstein voted in favor of bills banning the distribution of
bomb-making instructions, pornography and personal information over the
Internet. She wants to impose fines and jail terms for people who gamble
online. She supports strict export controls on encrypted software. And
she has joined the move to ban laptop computers on the Senate floor. 

``Isn't it ironic that the senator from California and the former mayor
of San Francisco appears to be running against the Internet?'' said
Stanton McCandlish, program director at The Electronic Frontier
Foundation, a civil libertarian organization in San Francisco. 

David Sobel, legal counsel at the nonpartisan Electronic Privacy
Information Center in Washington, D.C., said Feinstein is ``perceived to
be less supportive of the Internet and the computer industry than one
would expect.'' 

Feinstein -- a rumored vice presidential candidate in 2000 -- dismisses
the criticism as ``nonsense'' and says her record is ``replete'' with
technology-friendly legisla tion in securities litigation reform, R&D
tax credits and education. 

In September 1996, Feinstein was one of the few Democrats to override
President Clinton's veto of the securities-litigation reform legislation
that the high-tech industry desperately wanted. She also pushed hard for
the permanent extension of R&D tax credits in both the Taxpayer Relief
Act of 1997 and the 1996 Small Business Job Protection Act. Both bills
were passed into law. 

But Feinstein's strong law enforcement stance works ``to the detriment''
of the Internet, Sobel said. ``She accepts, without question, law
enforcement's claims about the dangers of the Internet.'' 

In Feinstein's view, ``This whole cyberspace is moving so fast that one
has to be sure that kids are protected,'' she said. ``I'm concerned when
kids blow themselves up by building bombs (they learned to make) over
the Internet, when Social Security card numbers are made available
online and when pedophiles punch up children's names. There is a
philosophy that anything goes. 

``I recognize the primacy of the First Amendment,'' she added. ``But
privacy goes two ways. I think prudent laws to protect children may well
be necessary. There should be a balance.'' 

Feinstein's most controversial stand is on encryption, the technology
that allows digital information to be scrambled and sent securely over
the Internet. Strong encryption is used within the United States to
protect the transmission of credit-card numbers, trade secrets and other
confidential information. 

But national security laws stretching back to the Cold War prohibit the
export of software with strong encryption. Law enforcement officials
want to be able to crack the code in case it's used by terrorists, drug
traffickers, economic saboteurs or others plotting against the United
States. 

High-tech companies say they want to be able to export software with
strong encryption because they're losing billions of dollars in
potential sales to foreign competitors who aren't subject to the same
restrictions. 

A bill called the Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act,
co-sponsored by Representative Anna Eshoo, D-Atherton, would relax
export controls. 

But a rival bill co-written by Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., and Bob
Kerry, D- Neb., titled the Secure Public Network Act would go the other
way and impose controls on use of encrypted software domestically. 

Feinstein favors the latter bill but doesn't think it goes far enough.
She thinks anyone who uses encrypted software should make a key to
unlock their code available to law enforcement authorities. 

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on encrypted software last
fall, Feinstein said that nothing short of mandatory domestic control of
encrypted software would be acceptable. She added that no high-tech CEO
had contacted her about the issue. 

Feinstein's comments caused a furor. A January 15 letter from 26
high-tech executives sent exclusively to Feinstein stated: 

``We were disappointed by your comments. . .implying that California
companies are ambivalent regarding your position on encryption policy. 

``California companies and industries nationwide are united in
opposition to domestic and export controls,'' the letter stated. It
closed with the names of chief executives from Netscape Communications,
America Online, Pacific Bell, 3Com, Sun Microsystems, Autodesk, Adobe
Systems, RSA Data Security and others. 

``I was nothing short of shocked,'' said RSA Data Security CEO Jim
Bidzos. ``For someone to take such an extreme position on such an
important issue without touching base with her constituency is
unbelievable.'' 

Explaining her position in an interview, Feinstein said, ``When a
particular situation involves public safety, there should be some means
for recovery of encrypted information by law enforcement that falls
within the strict confines of due process of law. 

``If industry can come up with a way to provide the same law enforcement
access without a mandatory key-recovery system, I would support it,''
she said. 

[...]