[1695] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: NY Times on Crypto policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Declan McCullagh)
Sun Oct 5 23:53:07 1997
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.971004133951.15275C-100000@ivan.iecc.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 21:59:38 -0400
To: John R Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Cc: crypto list <cryptography@c2.net>
At 13:45 -0400 10/4/97, John R Levine wrote:
>Friday's New York Times had a fairly strongly worded (for the Times)
>editorial against domestic encryption restrictions. It's probably still
>somewhere on their web site, but I can't find it at the moment.
I've attached the editorial below. The New York Times has been generally
pro-crypto. (The Washington Post, in contrast, has been repeatedly
pro-administration, at least on export controls.)
-Declan
>Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 06:15:03 -0400
>To: fight-censorship-announce@vorlon.mit.edu
>From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
>Subject: FC: NYT editorial: Freeh's crypto-plan "crossed the line"
>X-FC-URL: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/
>
>--------
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/editorial/03fri4.html
>
>The New York Times
>October 3, 1997
>
>Editorial: An Attack on Privacy Rights
>
>The Clinton Administration has proposed several
>unworkable plans over the years to keep powerful
>encryption programs that scramble telephone and computer
>messages out of the hands of foreign terrorists and
>criminals. But it has never tried to put the need to
>eavesdrop on criminals above the privacy rights of ordinary
>Americans. Last month the F.B.I. Director, Louis Freeh,
>crossed that line by urging Congress to outlaw the
>manufacture and distribution of encryption programs the
>Government cannot instantly crack.
>
>The House Intelligence Committee promptly passed a bill
>restricting domestically manufactured encryption products.
>The House Commerce Committee nearly followed suit, until
>furious lobbying by electronics and media companies,
>scientists and privacy advocates derailed the effort.
>
>The Intelligence Committee appears to envision programs
>that use mathematical passwords to mask sensitive
>communications like bank transfers and trade secrets.
>Citizens who bought such programs would disclose their
>passwords to a Government-approved body.
>
>Government could then grab the password upon presentation
>of a court order and decipher phone or computer messages
>without notifying the sender.
>
>The plan is unworkable because uncrackable encryption
>software is readily available abroad. Congress could try to
>forbid Americans to use any unbreakable encryption,
>regardless of who makes it. But that would trample on
>rights that Americans jealously protect to communicate free
>of Washington's interference.
>
>The best way to reduce many types of industrial and
>financial crime is to provide citizens powerful encryption
>so they can communicate without fear of corporate spies and
>thieves. But the House bill would effectively freeze
>encryption technology.
>
>In a threat to privacy, the bill sets a lower legal
>standard for the Government to get passwords than it must
>now meet to tap phone calls. It also calls on the United
>States to cooperate with foreign governments that may not
>live by American constitutional protections. Before
>encryption controls pick up more momentum, the White House
>needs to stamp out a bad idea.
>
>###
>
