FC: Armey asks for Fidnet privacy reassurances from Janet Reno

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

**********

> December 6, 1999
> The Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General
> US Department of Justice
> 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20530-0001
>
> Dear Attorney General Reno,
>
>       On September 27, I wrote to you seeking clarification of the
> Administration's policies regarding online privacy - specifically as related
> to encryption export controls and federal monitoring of online networks.
> Although I had asked for a response by October 15, I have still not received
> any answers to my questions.
>
> I have seen, however,  the draft regulations released by the U.S. Department
> of Commerce on November 24.  Unfortunately, they seem to fall short of the
> rhetoric employed when the new Administration position was announced.  The
> rules seem overly prescriptive and excessively bureaucratic.  Since these
> are only draft regulations, however, I am willing to reserve judgement until
> the rules are final.  I urge you to take another look at the provisions of
> HR 850, the SAFE Act, when crafting the final version - the bill has
> overwhelming bipartisan support and was scheduled for floor action when the
> Administration announced it's reversal on encryption export policy.
>
> Online privacy issues, like encryption, need to be handled in an open and
> straightforward manner.  As this Christmas shopping season has demonstrated,
> e-commerce is here to stay, but it will only continue to flourish if
> consumers have confidence that their online transactions are secure.  The
> Administration cannot continue to unveil important online policy changes
> without adequate public vetting and explanation.  A failure to communicate
> can lead to a lack of confidence in the online environment. 
>
> This is particularly true with regard to network security issues.  FIDNet,
> and other related computer network monitoring proposals, have raised many
> concerns about the federal government "cybersnooping" on online
> transactions.  While I share the Administration's goal of protecting
> government computer networks from outside intruders, there are serious
> policy questions about how best to achieve security in a way that protects
> personal privacy.
>
> The few answers that have been forthcoming are often vague and even
> contradictory.  For example, your September 24 letter states "As envisioned,
> FIDNet is being designed to monitor federal executive branch computer
> networks for intrusions, not private networks or the Internet in general."
> Yet National Journal's Tech Daily reported on October 20 that "The
> Department of Justice is cultivating controversial plans to avoid or repeal
> portions of the Freedom of Information Act because of concerns the law might
> keep businesses from playing a crucial role in the Clinton Administration's
> computer network security plans." 
>
> Is this article accurate?  If there is no private sector role in the
> "National Plan," why would FOIA have to be waived?  Or was your answer to my
> initial letter simply that FIDNet itself is not designed to monitor private
> networks, but that other components of the Administration's network security
> plan will involve private networks?  
>
> I feel very strongly that Congress should not authorize or appropriate any
> funds to implement the "National Plan," until the details of the plan are
> carefully scrutinized and debated by the Congress and the public at-large.
> Congress will not put the confidence of the American people in their online
> transactions at risk by prematurely supporting a plan that has not yet seen
> the light of day.  I hope you will take this opportunity to reassure the
> public that there is no Administration effort to invade personal privacy
> before releasing the "National Plan" later this year.
>
> The American people will not simply "trust" that the Justice Department,
> which allowed 900 FBI files containing personal information about American
> citizens to be released into unauthorized hands (i.e. Craig Livingstone),
> will be more careful with their online privacy. 
>
> People are very interested in preserving their personal security online.
> The future of e-commerce depends on it.  I urge you to work with Congress to
> bring these important Internet privacy issues to the forefront where they
> can be openly discussed and debated before the public.  I am certain that
> the Administration shares our commitment to online privacy.  Please take
> this opportunity to demonstrate it by providing more clarity and light to
> the encryption export rules and the FIDNet proposals.
>
>                               Sincerely,
>
>
>
>                               DICK ARMEY
>                               House Majority Leader
>
> Cc:    Secretary of Commerce, William M. Daley
> Secretary of  Defense, William S. Cohen
>       National Security Adviser,  Samuel R. Berger
> Chief Counselor for Privacy at OMB, Peter Swire




--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------