Interesting People mailing list archives
More boots are dropping; Denning suggests banning non-escrowed
From: David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 16:23:57 -0500
Subject: More boots are dropping; Denning suggests banning non-escrowed crypto From: Shabbir J. Safdar, shabbir () panix com Date: 1 Nov 1994 09:01:50 -0500 In article <395hoe$phf () panix3 panix com> Shabbir J. Safdar, shabbir () panix com writes:
Wiretap Watch - post-bill note November 1, 1994 Distribute Widely - (until November 30, 1994) Dr. Denning sees restrictions on non-escrowed crypto as an obvious possibility if Clipper sinks I attended the NYU Law School symposium on "rights in cyberspace" last Friday (Oct. 27, 1994) here in New York. There were three panels. On the mid afternoon panel, the topic was regulating state access to encrypted communications. Panelists included Oliver Smoot (attribution forgotten), Dr. Dorothy Denning (famous key escrow proponent), Steven Cherry (Voters Telecomm Watch spokesperson), and J Beckwith Burr (who was not a rep of the EFF, but gave a synopsis of their position). Dr. Denning gave a chillingly calm description of key escrow, and then the panelists as a whole answered questions. At one point the subject arose of just how "voluntary" Clipper really could be, seeing as the public and industry had overwhelmingly rejected it. Who will use a voluntary standard that nobody likes? The consensus of the key-escrow opponents on the panel seemed to be "nobody". Dr. Denning, speaking for herself and not as a spokesperson for the Administration, stated that if alternate non-escrowed encryption became prevalent, the next step would be to implement "restrictions" on non- escrowed technology. I think its safe to assume that Dr. Denning wasn't speaking of secret plot to ban private crypto; she was just commenting on the obvious: The Administration & Law Enforcement wants access to *all* communications. While they'll play "nice" now, they won't be so nice if you don't go along with them. It's going to get ugly down the road, and HR 5199 could be the panacea. What can you do? -Get to know your legislator. Just as the DT bill was railroaded through, there may not be a big chance of stopping 5199, a bill that could put into legislation the govt's key escrow program, making it a NIST standard. You must convince your legislator that a little privacy is a good thing. Non- escrowed crypto will not bring back all the privacy you've lost in the last 50 years. It will bring back some. Some is better than none, and it maintains the balance between law enforcement interests and privacy concerns. Learn who your legislators are. Put their phone numbers on a scrap of paper and keep them in your wallet or purse. This will encourage you to call next session during one of the crucial moments. -Save your money. There are a lot of organizations around that you can join that will represent your interests in Congress. Consider whether you should instead save your money and give it directly to a legislator with a good record on privacy and cryptography. Several such legislators were recently identified in the VTW (Voters Telecomm Watch) 1993/1994 Report Card. -Join the VTW announcements mailing list. Send mail to vtw () vtw org and ask to be subscribed to vtw-announce. We will be carefully tracking HR 5199 next session with the same frenetic precision we applied to Rep. Maria Cantwell's Cryptography Exports bill and the FBI's Wiretap/Digital Telephony bill. Thanks, -Shabbir
Current thread:
- More boots are dropping; Denning suggests banning non-escrowed David Farber (Nov 03)