Re: Wash. Post article on Clipper 2/5/94 -- comment on -- redistributed (via cc on original note to

[Mike Nelson <mnelson () ostp eop gov>]

As one of the White House officials most involved in the encryption
issue, I would like to correct a misimpression left by the Washington
Post article.


I am at a loss to determine where the Post reporter got the impression
that the "White House reserves the right to restrict encryption in the
future."  The fact is the background documents said in several places
that today any American can buy and use any encryption device they wish and
that the Clinton Administration has NO INTENTION of changing that policy.
I don't know how we can get more explicit than that.


Michael R. Nelson
Special Assistant, Information Technology
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Washington, DC 20506
202/395-6175






On Sat, 5 Feb 1994, David Farber wrote:


> Date:         Sat, 05 Feb 94 12:54:02 EST
> From: Kevin Curran <CURRAN%JHUHYG.BITNET () JHUVM HCF JHU EDU>
> Subject:      Wash. Post article on Clipper 2/5/94
>
> Please post to "interesting People" mailing list if you deem appropriate.
>
> David - I am reading today's page one story on the Washington Post by
> John Mintz & John Schwartz entitled 'Clinton Backs Security Agencies
> on Computer Eavesdropping'. Hopefully a full copy of this will make it
> to the interesting-people mailing list. Getting this on the front page
> is a good start though. I think the only way Clinton would back down
> from this would be if there was an outcry from the public. But with
> many people still not on the information highway yet and more concern
> and interest with ice-skating scandals, I'm afraid it's not on the
> front burner yet. The public needs to be educated on this before it's too
> late. Certainly one wouldn't let anyone search their home without probable
> cause and a warrant. Yet today much private data (eg credit histories,
> medical histories etc.) gets in the hands legally of people should have
> no business with it and I fear this may increase in the future. It's very
> frightening but not as frightening as a populace that is uninformed. Now
> to get back to the Post article. John - I'm wondering if you could
> clarify something in the article. Let me quote a short paragraph:
>
>      "Administration officials said that U.S. firms can buy powerful
>       encryption equipment that does not contain the Clipper chip if
>       they choose, but a White House statement said officials reserve
>       the right to 'restrict access' to such technology in the future."
>
> Two key questions arise: 1) Is there a date in the future after which all
> firms would be mandated to buy the Clipper technology? 2) Would those
> firms who bought non-Clipper encryption devices be allowed to keep them
> or be forced retroactively to adapt to Clipper?