IP: NY Times Slams FBI Crypto Policy

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 07:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>




yet another NYT editorial critical of the White House's crypto
restrictions...


====


                               The New York Times


                   July 6, 1998


Section A; Page 10


Editorial


Privacy in the Digital Age


:
   As more and more Americans communicate and do business electronically,
the fear is spreading that information they transmit can be seized by
hackers or criminals and used for illegal or unsavory purposes.
Fortunately, the technology to thwart such invasions already exists. It is
called encryption, or the encoding of digital information to secure its
privacy. But the Federal Bureau of Investigation is trying hard to prevent
the growing use of encryption, both in the United States and abroad,
because of fears that the protective technology itself will get into the
wrong hands. That shortsighted stand will undermine efforts to protect
commercial transactions and may actually hamper law enforcement rather than
help it.


   The Clinton Administration's current policies toward encryption have
been largely dictated by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department. These two
agencies now block encryption makers from exporting their most advanced
technology unless they agree to develop a method allowing law enforcement
agencies to gain access to it. The method favored by the F.B.I. is known as
the key escrow, in which the key to cracking a code is kept with a third
party that could hand it over quickly if law enforcement agencies demanded
it.


    But the key escrow method poses tremendous threats to privacy. There is
a danger that access to keys for the code could be abused by law
enforcement agencies and others. Worse, the United States would be required
to share key escrow information with law enforcement agencies of other
countries, and giving access to private communications to countries with
poor human rights records could lead to crackdowns on dissidents using
encryption for their own communications.


   According to industry officials, the export controls are already
backfiring. More and more foreign companies are supplying encryption
technologies without key escrow arrangements, making it virtually
impossible for the F.B.I. to eavesdrop and stealing business from American
firms. The growing foreign role diminishes the ability of the F.B.I. to
demand new safeguards or ways to penetrate the communications of criminals
who use encryption.


   President Clinton might normally be more sympathetic to concerns over
maintaining privacy in the digital world. But since Attorney General Janet
Reno has protected Mr. Clinton from an independent counsel on campaign
finance, the White House is said to be loath to oppose either her or Louis
Freeh, the F.B.I. Director, on this issue.


   On Capitol Hill, the debate over encryption has created some unusual
political alliances. Many conservative Republicans have stood with leaders
of the high-tech industry to oppose any kind of ban on encryption within
the


United States and to support a loosening of export controls on encryption
technology. It has been odd to see Trent Lott, the Senate majority leader,
and Dick Armey, the House majority leader, stand with civil libertarians
against the demands of the F.B.I. But the F.B.I. is not without influence.
House Speaker Newt Gingrich, more friendly to the agency, has prevented a
bill encouraging greater use of encryption from coming to a vote in the
House.


   The concerns of law enforcement agencies are legitimate. But smart
criminals are already using encryption, some of which is readily available
on the Internet. That was the message conveyed only a few weeks ago by such
unlikely allies as Bill Gates of Microsoft and Jim Barksdale of Netscape,
who are on opposite sides in the Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit
against Microsoft but agree on this issue.


   The F.B.I. should give up its losing fight against encryption and work
with industry to develop new means to catch criminals who use it. One
approach under discussion would be to develop software technology that
could be surreptitiously placed in a suspect's computer to capture
keystrokes before they are
encrypted. Any such operation would have to be carried out under strict
court control as the electronic equivalent of a search warrant. But law
enforcement agencies have to find a legal and ethical way to stay ahead of
technology, rather than stand in the way of it. Trying to block advances in
the digital age is futile.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe: send a message to majordomo () vorlon mit edu with this text:
subscribe politech
More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------