IP: Leading US Science Groups Protest Crypto Restrictions

[David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

From: USACM Washington Office <usacm_dc () acm org>
Subject: Leading US Science Groups Protest Crypto Restrictions




PRESS RELEASE


SEPTEMBER 24, 1997




LEADING US SCIENTIFIC, MATHEMATICS, AND ENGINEERING
SOCIETIES PROTEST RESTRICTIONS ON CRYPTOGRAPHY
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


The leading U.S. scientific, mathematics, and engineering societies sent a
united message to Congress today protesting proposed U.S. cryptography
policies that would maintain export restrictions limiting the open exchange
of scientific information and the progress of scientific research and
development.  In addition, these organizations warned that new requirements
for domestic key recovery raise serious scientific and technical problems
that undermine its viability as a policy alternative.  In a letter to the
House Commerce Committee, the societies indicated that the policies will
"diminish the scientific reputation of the United States and weaken us
economically."


This is the first time these highly influential societies have united to
inform Congress how cryptography policies will effect the future of
scientific research and development in the U. S.  Until now,  the debate
has focused on commercial, civil liberties, and national security/ law
enforcement interests.


The House Commerce Committee will vote today on proposed legislation
removing restrictions on the export of encryption products.  However,
amendments to this language were passed by two House Committees restricting
the domestic use of encryption.  The letter urges the Committee to reject
such proposals or " U.S. leadership in many areas of  science and
technology is likely to be jeopardized with no discernible benefits to our
National Interests."


Export controls and domestic restrictions on cryptography development and
use impact scientific freedoms in a number of ways. Cryptographers, a
specialized subset of computer scientists, mathematicians, and engineers,
are unable to communicateare unable to communicate with their colleagues
overseas or to participate in international projects aimed at developing a
secure GII.   The full and open exchange of scientific information
facilitated by these organizations has significantly increased the economic
strength of the United States. However the proposed new laws would continue
to force them to exclude members living outside the United States from this
free exchange.


According to Dr. Barbara Simons, " The scientific and engineering societies
today speak with one voice in urging Congress not to enact cryptography
policies which will prohibit scientists from performing important research.
If scientists cannot research and develop new cryptographic tools, the
future of electronic commerce may be in jeopardy."






CONTACTS:


Dr. Barbara Simons
Chair
U.S. Public Policy Committee for the Association for Computing
phone:  408:256-3661
pager:  1-888-329-3091
pager id:       2533409
e-mail  simons () VNET IBM COM


Dr. Peter Neumann
U.S. Public Policy Committee for the Association for Computing
email:  neumann () csl sri com


Ed Lazowska
Chair, Computer Science
University of Washington
e-mail: lazowska () cs washington edu
phone:  206 543 4755


David L. Waltz
President,
American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)
e-mail: waltz () research nj nec com
phone:  609-951-2700
fax:    609-951-2483


Irving Lerch
Co-Chair, Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility
American Association for the Advancement of Science
phone:  301 209 3236


Mary Gray
Co-Chair, Scientific Freedom and Responsibility
American Association for the Advancement of Science
phone:  202 885 3171


Staff:  Lauren Gelman 202/544-4859      gelman () acm org
        Alex Fowler 202/ 326-7016       afowler () aaas org


September 24, 1997


Dear Chairman Bliley:


As representatives of the leading scientific, mathematics, and
engineering societies in the United States, we are writing to protest
current and proposed U.S. cryptography policies that restrict the open
exchange of scientific information and the progress of scientific research
and development.  We object to national policies that criminalize
the use of cryptography that is not approved by the Administration or
that mandate domestic key recovery schemes.


The leadership that the United States currently enjoys in research and
development of encryption algorithms, cryptographic products, and computer
security technology will be seriously eroded, if not essentially eliminated,
by misguided proposals to restrict the domestic use of encryption.


  o The development of strong cryptographic technology is crucial to the
    further growth of our electronic infrastructure.  Encryption protects
    the security and privacy of communications and stored data.
    A lack of strong universally available encryption exacerbates security
    problems on personal computers, intranets, and the world-wide Internet.
    A recent National Academy of Sciences study warned against the
    government's premature reliance on key recovery as an encryption
    technique.  It urged that the method be deployed in test situations first
    to work out problems.  This has not been done.


  o Our organizations publish numerous scientific journals and conference
    proceedings, often relying on the Internet for publication.  The free
    exchange of scientific information facilitated by our organizations
    has significantly increased the economic strength of the United States.
    But the proposed new laws would continue to force us to exclude members
    living outside the United States from this free exchange.  The result
would
    diminish the scientific reputation of the United States and weaken us
    economically.


  o It is unreasonable and probably unconstitutional to distinguish between
    printed and electronic distribution of encryption source code.  U.S.
policy
    should not create an artificial distinction between paper and electronic
    versions of a document.


  o U.S. scientists and engineers involved with research and development of
    cryptographic tools cannot publish their results using electronic media,
    are restricted in their efforts to educate the next generation of computer
    scientists, and cannot communicate with their international colleagues.
    For example, the U.S. cryptography community has not been able to
    participate in the Internet Protocol Security project, an effort to
    develop new international standards for Internet security.


  o Publication restrictions relating to cryptography have a negative
    impact on peer review and the development of robust algorithms.  To
    demonstrate that encryption algorithms are secure, cryptographers
    publish their algorithms and other cryptographers try to break them.
    Not only does this process tend to identify faulty algorithms, but it is
    also a precondition for the public to have confidence that the algorithm
    is secure.


  o Computer systems currently are plagued by considerable security
    and privacy weaknesses. These problems will become more widespread
    as electronic commerce develops and computer systems become ubiquitous.
    Cryptographers in the U.S. face numerous barriers when addressing
    computer security issues, and some security researchers may be unwilling
    to continue their work because they will be restricted in publishing and
    discussing their research.


In conclusion, we urge you to eliminate current policies that stifle the
ability of researchers and implementers to study and build cryptographic
algorithms, secure information systems, and secure network protocols.
Otherwise, U.S. leadership in many areas of science and technology is
likely to be jeopardized with no discernible benefits to our National
Interests.


For more information please contact Barbara Simons at 408/256-3661,
Alex Fowler at 202/326-7016 or Lauren Gelman at 202/544-4859.


Sincerely,












************************************************************************
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
 safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."       - Ben Franklin, ~1784
************************************************************************