IP: Mockery and Fear Greet Encryption Plan -- A MUST READ!!!!!

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:25:42 -0400
To: farber () cis upenn edu (David Farber)
From: "Richard J. Solomon" <richard () goodread com>


http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/091297encrypt-side.html


It's really a must-read for IP'ers. Remember the Roman Emperors feared
mockery more than rebellion. Cicero's fate was to be murdered because
Antony could not stand his fluent mockery. But Antony eventually committed
suicide anyway.


If you can't run the article because of copyright, run the url. It's in
Cybertimes, hence not printed in the paper.


[I will make a major exception in this case and distribute this article. I
think it is too important not to be easily read by all the IP list. I used
to say that at least we have the first ammedment left but now that is being
attacked. There is a science fiction story from many years ago about the
USA that won the cold war but in the battle became just as bad as the
former enemy. We "won" the cold war and are becoming a copy of what we
defeated. TIME TO FIGHT BACK!!  DJF]


 =20
=20
=20
September 12, 1997






Mockery and Fear Greet Encryption Plan
By PETER WAYNER=20
The members of the House Select Committee on Intelligence who voted on
Thursday to push for strict controls on encryption software must have
expected to be hated on the Internet, but they probably didn't plan on
getting laughed at.=20


 RELATED ARTICLE
House Committee Casts Wide Net With Encryption Vote


=20
The new proposed controls, however, are so all-encompassing that they could
be interpreted to ban all communications and they are being greeted by
bitter jokes and almost paralyzing fear.=20


For instance, Ron Rivest, the Webster Professor of Computer Science at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pointed out in the popular newsgroup
comp.risks that the new rules would ban smiley faces [like :-) and ;-)]
from the Net because they are unregistered codes. The proposal from the
Intelligence Committee would force all developers of encryption to arrange
for the police to get the "plaintext" of any message, that is the true
meaning after all of the codes have been stripped away.=20


Rivest also pointed out that the Bible could be banned from the Internet
because of the hidden messages buried inside of it. The Bible Code , a
recent best-seller by Michael Drosnin, describes how to find messages of
prophecy in the sacred book. The book claims that a code predicting the
assassination of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel could be
found by rearranging the letters in the Hebrew edition of the Bible.=20


Many have pointed out that the techniques in Drosnin's book can be applied
to find any message you want in practically any text that is long enough.
This ambiguity and indeterminacy is also basis for much of the fear that is
also flowing through the Internet. Many worry that their casual short hand,
inside joke or foreign language could be re-interpreted as a technique for
sending a message that the FBI can't decode =97 something that would be
forbidden after 2000 by the House's Intelligence Committee's version of the
bill.=20


While Rivest's suggestions seem absurd at first glance, they accurately
reflect the challenge facing the branches of the Clinton administration
like the FBI and the Department of Commerce. Both are actively pushing for
an end to the use of unmonitored encryption, but must find a way to define
just what encryption is. The House committee is one group in Congress
working closely with the administration to find a definition.=20


Peter Neumann, a security expert at SRI International, wrote in comp.risks
recently: "You think this is early April Fools'? WRONG. Think again. This
is just a hint of some VERY SERIOUS stuff. There are many concerned people
in the computer security community and in the privacy community who believe
that most of the U.S. populace will be the Fools if the newly proposed
legislation goes through."=20


The latest approach is to ban virtually everything and presumably let the
prosecutors decide what qualifies as encryption. For instance, an early
version of the proposed rules would ban "any product that can be used to
encrypt communications or electronic information" unless the police could
eavesdrop in secret. This sweeping clause would seem to include all
computers, paper, chalkboards, cereal box decoder rings, writing
instruments and the arms of baseball managers telling their players what to
do.=20


People are trying to assess the full measure of the legislation. Michael
Froomkin, a professor of law at the University of Miami, argues that it
would be found unconstitutional. Mac Norton, an adjunct law professor from
the University of Arkansas, proposed that the newest regulations are merely
intended to make efforts like the bill sponsored by Senators Bob Kerrey,
Democrat of Nebraska, and John McCain, Republican of Arizona, seem
centrist. "Don't be shocked or otherwise upset about this blatant political
tactic." he said. "Let's just publicize it for what it is, something nobody
believes in. Nothing but a naked and rather stupid political maneuver
unworthy of the Clinton administration."=20


Still, others are not so certain. Tim May, a former Intel engineer, posted
a note recently in the Cypherpunks mailing list that said: "Even if
domestic strong crypto is not fully banned, expect a series of moves to
make it very unpalatable for most upstanding citizen units to use. And
corporations will be 'disincentivized' to use crypto, except that approved
by Washington."=20


In the midst of all this discussion floats a snippet from a press
conference with Attorney General Janet Reno. In response to a question
asking whether more can be done to protect privacy in the wake of the death
of Diana, Princess of Wales, she said: "I think it is important for all of
us, no matter what our role, to be respectful of other people's privacy.
And I think this is an instance where it has given us all cause to look at
it and to ponder how we can deal with this issue."=20