Keep Big Brother's hands off the Internet...

[InfoSec News <isn () c4i org>]

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm

[What a difference a few years makes...  =)  - WK]

By Senator John Ashcroft

Republican, Missouri
Chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, 
Foreign Commerce and Tourism

[Senator Ashcroft takes issue with administration views on the
Internet and the use of encryption technology.]

The Internet provides a great opportunity to our country, in part by
representing the most inviting form of communication ever developed.  
It draws people together from all corners of the globe to share and
communicate on an unprecedented level, and brings all branches of
government closer to the public that they serve.

The Internet allows small businesses to reach out across the globe and
conquer the distances between them and potential customers.  
Individuals can view merchandise and make purchases without leaving
home. The Internet also holds great promise for education. Students --
rural, suburban, and urban -- are increasingly able to access a wealth
of information with their fingertips that was previously beyond their
reach.

In order to guarantee that the United States meets the challenge of
this new means of commerce, communication, and education, government
must be careful not to interfere. We should not harness the Internet
with a confusing array of intrusive regulations and controls. Yet, the
Clinton administration is trying to do just that.

The Clinton administration would like the Federal government to have
the capability to read any international or domestic computer
communications. The FBI wants access to decode, digest, and discuss
financial transactions, personal e-mail, and proprietary information
sent abroad -- all in the name of national security. To accomplish
this, President Clinton would like government agencies to have the
keys for decoding all exported U.S. software and Internet
communications.

This proposed policy raises obvious concerns about Americans' privacy,
in addition to tampering with the competitive advantage that our U.S.  
software companies currently enjoy in the field of encryption
technology. Not only would Big Brother be looming over the shoulders
of international cyber-surfers, but the administration threatens to
render our state-of-the-art computer software engineers obsolete and
unemployed.

There is a concern that the Internet could be used to commit crimes
and that advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we
do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for
unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the
Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our
communications across the Web?

The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to
protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value.  
Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in defense of this
fundamental right. The state's interest in effective crime-fighting
should never vitiate the citizens' Bill of Rights.

The president has proposed that American software companies supply the
government with decryption keys to high level encryption programs.  
Yet, European software producers are free to produce computer
encryption codes of all levels of security without providing keys to
any government authority. Purchasers of encryption software value
security above all else. These buyers will ultimately choose airtight
encryption programs that will not be American-made programs to which
the U.S. government maintains keys.

In spite of this truism, the president is attempting to foist his
rigid policy on the exceptionally fluid and fast-paced computer
industry. Furthermore, recent developments in decryption technology
bring into question the dynamic of government meddling in this
industry. Three months ago, the 56-bit algorithm government standard
encryption code that protects most U.S. electronic financial
transactions from ATM cards to wire transfers was broken by a
low-powered 90 MHZ Pentium processor.

In 1977, when this code was first approved by the U.S. government as a
standard, it was deemed unbreakable. And for good reason. There are 72
quadrillion (72,000 trillion) different combinations in a 56-bit code.  
However, with today's technology these 72 quadrillion combinations can
each be tried in a matter of time.

Two days after this encryption code was broken, a majority of the U.S.  
Senate Commerce Committee voted, in accordance with administration
policy, to force American software companies to perpetuate this
already compromised 56-bit encryption system. In spite of the fact
that 128-bit encryption software from European firms is available on
Web sites accessible to every Internet user. Interestingly, European
firms can import this super-secure encryption technology (originally
developed by Americans) to the United States, but U.S. companies are
forbidden by law from exporting these same programs to other
countries.

I believe that moving forward with the president's policy or the
Commerce Committee's bill would be an act of folly, creating a cadre
of government "peeping toms" and causing severe damage to our vibrant
software industries. Government would be caught in a perpetual game of
catch-up with whiz-kid code-breakers and industry advances. Senate
Majority Leader Trent Lott has signaled his objection to both
proposals.

The leader and I would like to work to bring solid encryption
legislation to the Senate floor. Any proposal should give U.S.  
encryption software manufacturers the freedom to compete on equal
footing in the international marketplace, by providing the industry
with a quasi-governmental board that would decide encryption bit
strength based on the level of international technological
development.

U.S. companies are on the front line of on-line technologies --
value-added industries of the future. Consider this: Every eighteen
months, the processing capability of a computer doubles. The speed
with which today's fastest computers calculate will be slug-like
before the next millennium or the next presidential election comes
along. The best policy for encryption technology is one that can
rapidly react to breakthroughs in decoding capability and roll back
encryption limits as needed.

The administration's interest in all e-mail is a wholly unhealthy
precedent, especially given this administration's track record on FBI
files and IRS snooping. Every medium by which people communicate can
be subject to exploitation by those with illegal intentions.  
Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock
our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or
translate our international communications.

Additionally, the full potential of the Internet will never be
realized without a system that fairly protects the interests of those
who use the Internet for their businesses, own copyrighted material,
deliver that material via the Internet, or individual users. The
implications here are far-reaching, with impacts that touch individual
users, companies, libraries, universities, teachers, and students.

In December 1996, two treaties were adopted by the diplomatic
conference of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to
update international copyright law. These treaties would extend
international copyright law into the digital environment, including
the Internet. However, these treaties do not provide a comprehensive
response to the many copyright issues raised by the flourishing of the
Internet and the promise of digital technology. We must work to keep
the scales of copyright law balanced, providing important protections
to creators of content, while ensuring their widespread distribution.  
In an attempt to meet these goals, I introduced the Digital Copyright
Clarification and Technology Education Act of 1997.

Equally important, we must begin a process that is structured to
balance the rights of copyright owners with the needs and
technological limitations of those who enable the distribution of the
electronic information, and with the rights and needs of individual
end users. The current treaties and statements are not sufficient, and
include some language that could create legal uncertainty. This vague
language could lead to laws that ignore technical realities. The
language must be clarified through the enactment of legislation in
conjunction with the Senate's ratification of the treaties.

Another issue that could prevent the Internet from reaching its
potential is taxation. If we tax the Internet prematurely or allow
discriminatory taxing, we may stifle a burgeoning technological
development that holds much commercial, social, and educational
promise for all Americans. Taxation should be considered only after we
have fully examined and understood the impact that unequivocal
taxation would have on this new means of commerce. The Internet Tax
Freedom Act would allow for full consideration of the opportunities
and possible abuses by placing a moratorium on further taxation of
online commerce and technologically discriminatory taxes. It is
important to note that S. 442 will allow states and local
jurisdictions to continue to collect any tax already levied on
electronic commerce.

On-line communications technology is akin to the Wild West of the 19th
century. To best settle this new frontier, we should unleash American
know-how and ingenuity. The government's police-state policy on
encryption is creating hindrances and hurdles that will eventually
injure our ability to compete internationally. Government's role
should be to break down barriers, to allow everyone to excel to their
highest and best.

__________ 
Senator Ashcroft is a member of the Senate Commerce, Judiciary, and 
Foreign Relations Committees. His Web homepage is: 
http://www.senate.gov/~ashcroft/ and his e-mail address is: 
john_ashcroft () ashcroft senate gov 

Global Issues
USIA Electronic Journal, Vol. 2, No. 4, October 1997 



-
ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org

To unsubscribe email majordomo () attrition org with 'unsubscribe isn'
in the BODY of the mail.