Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: Some Notes on Today's Senate Hearings
From: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 07:06:24 +0900
In case you think folks might be interested, here are some notes on today's Senate hearings on encryption and critical infrastructures. -- Alan Alan Davidson, Staff Counsel 202.637.9800 (v) Center for Democracy and Technology 202.637.0968 (f) 1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 1100 <abd () cdt org> Washington, DC 20006 PGP key via finger (1) Legal Scholars Argue Encryption Controls Unconstitutional; Administration Backs Off Domestic Controls (For Now) The Department of Justice and constitutional experts presented dramatically different views of the Bill of Rights in today's Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on encryption. While the DOJ defended the constitutionality of domestic encryption controls, two leading legal scholars presented a sweeping assessment of how domestic controls violate the protections of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. A RealAudio transcript of the hearing before Senator Ashcroft's Constitution Subcommittee is available at http://www.computerprivacy.org DOJ representative Robert Litt testified that as a matter of official policy the Administration is "not looking for any mandatory controls domestically at this time." This policy apparently applies to the FBI as well. (For an interesting aside, see today's Reuters story on the hearing: "The bureau hopes voluntary concessions by manufacturers of encryption technology will give it the same capabilities [as legislation], officials said." -- available at http://www.crypto.com) Litt went on to provide a chilling outline of why the Administration believes criminalization of non-recoverable encryption would be constitutional. Later in the hearing, leading constitutional scholars Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago and Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford testified that key recovery of the type contemplated by the FBI and Clinton Administration is inconsistent with fundamental free expression and privacy rights embodied in the Bill of Rights. While falling short of calling encryption controls clearly unconstitutional under current Supreme Court doctrine, Epstein and Sullivan presented a broad Constitutional case against encryption controls, based on: * First Amendment principles prohibiting bans on an entire medium of speech, like encryption; protecting anonymous speech; and protecting the speech interest in publishing encryption source code. * Fourth Amendment protections prohibiting the generalized seizure created by key recovery without appropriate legal process. * Fifth Amendment protections protecting against self-incrimination (implicated by the compelled production of key information); and prohibiting uncompensated "takings" like those created by the additional risks and costs imposed on users by key recovery. Attorney Cindy Cohn, lead counsel in Professor Dan Bernstein's challenge to US export controls on encryption, also testified on the first amendment interests that have been recognized in encryption source code. See http://www.eff.org/ for more details. The testimony of Professors Sullivan and Epstein is available through CDT's Web site at http://www.cdt.org/crypto (2) Sam Nunn a Friend to Encryption Advocates? Also in the Senate Judiciary Committee today, Senator Kyl's Technology Subcommittee held hearings on "Protecting America's Critical Infrastructures: The new policy directive." As expected, Senators Kyl and Feinstein used the hearing as an opportunity to call for the development and deployment of greater surveillance technologies for the information infrastructure. Danny Weitzner of CDT, who attended the hearing, notes that encryption advocates may have "found a new friend" in ex-Senator Sam Nunn, who now co-chairs a new critical infrastructure protection advisory group. Nunn testified that it is vital that the current stalemate over encryption policy be resolved soon because: 1) strong encryption is critical to the security of domestic infrastructures; and 2) failure to resolve the deadlock between government and industry has lead to such a high level of mistrust by industry that it is difficult to make any progress on any other infrastructure protection issues since those issues require a high degree of cooperation. **************************************************************************** Professor David Farber The Alfred Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunication Systems University of Pennsylvania 200 S. 33 rd Street Office routed to Cellular -- + 1 215 898 9508 voice only Philadelphia PA 19104-6389 Jfax : +12122534135 or +14084902720 Home: POB 424 250 Good Hope Road (for Fedex) Home:+ 1 610 274 8292 voice; Fax +1 610 274 8293 Landenberg PA 19350-0424 Primary occupation -- Tele-techno-yenta Home Page: http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~farber My PGP Key fingerprint: 85A1 7EA0 E20E 81B6 CF05 CA1B 0825 AB1E 8D61 16C8 Publisher and Editor of the IP List Member of the Board of Directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Member of the Board of Trustees of the Internet Society Governor of the ICCC Fellow of the Glocom Institute of Japan and the Cyberspace Law Institute Member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Democracy and Technology Senior Advisor of the ASIA NETWORK RESEARCH (ANR) - Malayasia "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin, ~1784 "Photons have neither morals nor visas" -- Dave Farber 1994 "A revolution is not a dinner party." -- Mao Tse Tung "Farber is the Paul Revere of Cyberspace" -- Wired Magazine Sept 1996
Current thread:
- IP: Some Notes on Today's Senate Hearings Dave Farber (Mar 17)