[12082] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
KEEP BIG BROTHER'S HANDS OFF THE INTERNET by Senator John Ashcroft
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kris Kennaway)
Mon Nov 25 15:28:21 2002
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:10:45 -0800
From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
To: cryptography@wasabisystems.com
--zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm
[ How ironic ]
KEEP BIG BROTHER'S HANDS OFF THE INTERNET =20
=20
By Senator John Ashcroft =20
=20
Republican, Missouri =20
Chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer =20
Affairs, Foreign Commerce and Tourism =20
=20
[Senator Ashcroft takes issue with administration views on the =20
Internet =20
and the use of encryption technology.] =20
=20
--------------------------------------------------------------- =20
=20
The Internet provides a great opportunity to our country, in =20
part by representing the most inviting form of communication =20
ever developed. It draws people together from all corners of =20
the globe to share and communicate on an unprecedented level, =20
and brings all branches of government closer to the public that =20
they serve. =20
=20
The Internet allows small businesses to reach out across the =20
globe and conquer the distances between them and potential =20
customers. Individuals can view merchandise and make purchases =20
without leaving home. The Internet also holds great promise for =20
education. Students -- rural, suburban, and urban -- are =20
increasingly able to access a wealth of information with their =20
fingertips that was previously beyond their reach. =20
=20
In order to guarantee that the United States meets the =20
challenge of this new means of commerce, communication, and =20
education, government must be careful not to interfere. We =20
should not harness the Internet with a confusing array of =20
intrusive regulations and controls. Yet, the Clinton =20
administration is trying to do just that. =20
=20
The Clinton administration would like the Federal government to =20
have the capability to read any international or domestic =20
computer communications. The FBI wants access to decode, =20
digest, and discuss financial transactions, personal e-mail, =20
and proprietary information sent abroad -- all in the name of =20
national security. To accomplish this, President Clinton would =20
like government agencies to have the keys for decoding all =20
exported U.S. software and Internet communications. =20
=20
This proposed policy raises obvious concerns about Americans' =20
privacy, in addition to tampering with the competitive =20
advantage that our U.S. software companies currently enjoy in =20
the field of encryption technology. Not only would Big Brother =20
be looming over the shoulders of international cyber-surfers, =20
but the administration threatens to render our state-of-the-art =20
computer software engineers obsolete and unemployed. =20
=20
There is a concern that the Internet could be used to commit =20
crimes and that advanced encryption could disguise such =20
activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone =20
jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, =20
should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen =20
at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? =20
=20
The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to =20
protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American =20
value. Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in =20
defense of this fundamental right. The state's interest in =20
effective crime-fighting should never vitiate the citizens' =20
Bill of Rights. =20
=20
The president has proposed that American software companies =20
supply the government with decryption keys to high level =20
encryption programs. Yet, European software producers are free =20
to produce computer encryption codes of all levels of security =20
without providing keys to any government authority. Purchasers =20
of encryption software value security above all else. These =20
buyers will ultimately choose airtight encryption programs that =20
will not be American-made programs to which the U.S. government =20
maintains keys. =20
=20
In spite of this truism, the president is attempting to foist =20
his rigid policy on the exceptionally fluid and fast-paced =20
computer industry. Furthermore, recent developments in =20
decryption technology bring into question the dynamic of =20
government meddling in this industry. Three months ago, the =20
56-bit algorithm government standard encryption code that =20
protects most U.S. electronic financial transactions from ATM =20
cards to wire transfers was broken by a low-powered 90 MHZ =20
Pentium processor. =20
=20
In 1977, when this code was first approved by the U.S. =20
government as a standard, it was deemed unbreakable. And for =20
good reason. There are 72 quadrillion (72,000 trillion) =20
different combinations in a 56-bit code. However, with today's =20
technology these 72 quadrillion combinations can each be tried =20
in a matter of time. =20
=20
Two days after this encryption code was broken, a majority of =20
the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee voted, in accordance with =20
administration policy, to force American software companies to =20
perpetuate this already compromised 56-bit encryption system. =20
In spite of the fact that 128-bit encryption software from =20
European firms is available on Web sites accessible to every =20
Internet user. Interestingly, European firms can import this =20
super-secure encryption technology (originally developed by =20
Americans) to the United States, but U.S. companies are =20
forbidden by law from exporting these same programs to other =20
countries. =20
=20
I believe that moving forward with the president's policy or =20
the Commerce Committee's bill would be an act of folly, =20
creating a cadre of government "peeping toms" and causing =20
severe damage to our vibrant software industries. Government =20
would be caught in a perpetual game of catch-up with whiz-kid =20
code-breakers and industry advances. Senate Majority Leader =20
Trent Lott has signaled his objection to both proposals. =20
=20
The leader and I would like to work to bring solid encryption =20
legislation to the Senate floor. Any proposal should give U.S. =20
encryption software manufacturers the freedom to compete on =20
equal footing in the international marketplace, by providing =20
the industry with a quasi-governmental board that would decide =20
encryption bit strength based on the level of international =20
technological development. =20
=20
U.S. companies are on the front line of on-line technologies -- =20
value-added industries of the future. Consider this: Every =20
eighteen months, the processing capability of a computer =20
doubles. The speed with which today's fastest computers =20
calculate will be slug-like before the next millennium or the =20
next presidential election comes along. The best policy for =20
encryption technology is one that can rapidly react to =20
breakthroughs in decoding capability and roll back encryption =20
limits as needed. =20
=20
The administration's interest in all e-mail is a wholly =20
unhealthy precedent, especially given this administration's =20
track record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by =20
which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by =20
those with illegal intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason =20
to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open =20
our ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our =20
international communications. =20
=20
Additionally, the full potential of the Internet will never be =20
realized without a system that fairly protects the interests of =20
those who use the Internet for their businesses, own =20
copyrighted material, deliver that material via the Internet, =20
or individual users. The implications here are far-reaching, =20
with impacts that touch individual users, companies, libraries, =20
universities, teachers, and students. =20
=20
In December 1996, two treaties were adopted by the diplomatic =20
conference of the World Intellectual Property Organization =20
(WIPO) to update international copyright law. These treaties =20
would extend international copyright law into the digital =20
environment, including the Internet. However, these treaties do =20
not provide a comprehensive response to the many copyright =20
issues raised by the flourishing of the Internet and the =20
promise of digital technology. We must work to keep the scales =20
of copyright law balanced, providing important protections to =20
creators of content, while ensuring their widespread =20
distribution. In an attempt to meet these goals, I introduced =20
the Digital Copyright Clarification and Technology Education =20
Act of 1997. =20
=20
Equally important, we must begin a process that is structured =20
to balance the rights of copyright owners with the needs and =20
technological limitations of those who enable the distribution =20
of the electronic information, and with the rights and needs of =20
individual end users. The current treaties and statements are =20
not sufficient, and include some language that could create =20
legal uncertainty. This vague language could lead to laws that =20
ignore technical realities. The language must be clarified =20
through the enactment of legislation in conjunction with the =20
Senate's ratification of the treaties. =20
=20
Another issue that could prevent the Internet from reaching its =20
potential is taxation. If we tax the Internet prematurely or =20
allow discriminatory taxing, we may stifle a burgeoning =20
technological development that holds much commercial, social, =20
and educational promise for all Americans. Taxation should be =20
considered only after we have fully examined and understood the =20
impact that unequivocal taxation would have on this new means =20
of commerce. The Internet Tax Freedom Act would allow for full =20
consideration of the opportunities and possible abuses by =20
placing a moratorium on further taxation of online commerce and =20
technologically discriminatory taxes. It is important to note =20
that S. 442 will allow states and local jurisdictions to =20
continue to collect any tax already levied on electronic =20
commerce. =20
=20
On-line communications technology is akin to the Wild West of =20
the 19th century. To best settle this new frontier, we should =20
unleash American know-how and ingenuity. The government's =20
police-state policy on encryption is creating hindrances and =20
hurdles that will eventually injure our ability to compete =20
internationally. Government's role should be to break down =20
barriers, to allow everyone to excel to their highest and best. =20
=20
__________ =20
=20
Senator Ashcroft is a member of the Senate Commerce, Judiciary, =20
and Foreign Relations Committees. His Web homepage is: http:// =20
www.senate.gov/~ashcroft/ and his e-mail address is: =20
john_ashcroft@ashcroft.senate.gov =20
=20
--------------------------------------------------------------- =20
Global Issues =20
USIA Electronic Journal, Vol. 2, No. 4, October 1997 =20
--zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQE94oPEWry0BWjoQKURAtLmAKDhCDzvTe2GkwVitJmon2Hm4p9fswCgxq8S
kVfhrGcQMUy8HPomPIcFwjQ=
=FnIC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
