Clinton plan draws opposition (NYT) (Sept 24)

   
      September 24, 1997
      
Scientists Campaign for Computer-Data Security

      By JOHN MARKOFF
      
     A Clinton administration-backed proposal that would impose strict
     new controls on the domestic use of data-scrambling equipment has
     drawn fresh opposition from some of the United States' leading
     scientific, educational and engineering organizations.
     
     In a letter to be sent to Congress on Wednesday, a dozen groups
     including the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
     the Institute for Electronics and Electrical Engineering, the
     American Mathematical Society and the American Association of
     University Professors, have for the first time criticized the
     government for its policy on the control of encryption technology.
     
     The organizations are responding to an amendment to a bill
     introduced by Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-Va. The amendment, to be
     considered Wednesday by the House Commerce Committee, will be
     offered by Reps. Michael Oxley, R-Ohio, and Thomas Manton, D-N.Y.
     
     After Jan. 1, 1999, it would prohibit the manufacture, sale,
     distribution, export or import of encryption systems that could
     hide communications from law-enforcement agencies.
     
     Oxley said Tuesday that he knew of no existing technology that
     could perform that function. But he said he believed that it would
     be feasible, protecting privacy while at the same time not
     hindering law enforcement. He added: "I find it disturbing that we
     would throw up our hands and say we can't do anything. That's not
     my style."
     
     But the scientific associations said the amendment would have a
     chilling effect on the open exchange of information and the
     progress of scientific research and development.
     
     "The law would have a grave effect on cryptographic research in the
     United States, and it could have an impact on commerce in the
     U.S.," said Irving Lerch, co-chairman of the committee on
     scientific freedom and responsibility of the American Association
     for the Advancement of Science. "If you chill it here, other
     countries will benefit."
     
     The letter said that the development of strong cryptographic
     technology is crucial to the further growth of electronic commerce
     in the United States.
     
     Last year, a report commissioned by the National Research Council
     concluded both that the government should not institute domestic
     controls on cryptography technology and that the government should
     prove that technologies that permit wiretapping were actually
     effective before adopting them.
     
     "One of the problems with the current legislation is that policy
     decisions have to be technically and scientifically informed," said
     Ed Lazowska, chairman of the computer science department at the
     University of Washington and a member of the research council's
     report panel.
     
     He said that 13 of the 16 panel members had security clearances and
     that nothing in the briefings they received from the administration
     led them to recommend domestic controls.
     
     The original intention of the bill introduced by Goodlatte was to
     limit both domestic and export controls on encryption technology,
     which advocates say is intended to protect privacy in the
     information age. However, administration officials, led by the FBI
     director, Louis Freeh, have been waging an intense campaign in
     recent weeks intended to reverse the effect of Goodlatte's bill.
     
     Law-enforcement officials argue that without the restrictions, new
     technologies will make it impossible for them to wiretap criminal
     suspects. Increasingly, a shift to digital-communications
     technologies has placed new burdens on federal and local law
     agencies, which must keep up with the likes of cellular telephones
     and communications over the Internet.
     
     But civil libertarians and American high-technology executives
     respond that it will be technically impossible to create systems
     permitting instant code breaking without undermining the security
     of communications and data networks.
     
     Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., plans to offer a competing amendment
     to the Oxley-Manton proposal that would create a federal center
     providing code-breaking technology to law-enforcement officers.
     
                 Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company