Encryption Tops Wide-Ranging Net Agenda in Congress (NYT)

     
      September 4, 1997
     
Encryption Tops Wide-Ranging Net Agenda in Congress

      By JERI CLAUSING Bio
     
     W ASHINGTON -- As Congress returns
     from its summer break this week, it faces a host of legislative
     initiatives that could shape the future of online privacy, commerce
     and jurisdiction.
     
     Topping the agenda is encryption, an issue that has pitted
     President Clinton and his top crime fighters against virtually
     everybody else.
     
     The word encryption traditionally conjures images of spies and
     sophisticated international organized crime rings. But with the
     dawn of the Internet, it is also the key to private communication
     and secure business transactions.
     
     And while Clinton on July 1 took a very public stand for a
     tax-free, self-governed Internet, his administration is pushing to
     create a key-recovery system that would keep encrypted codes on
     file for law enforcement officials to access.
     
     But the administration is not alone in backing bills that would
     appear to be contradictory to the principles of a free,
     self-governed Internet. Some groups are fighting to ban or regulate
     unsolicited commercial e-mail, or spam. Others want to ban gambling
     on the Internet and criminalize copyright infringements.
     
     Of the dozen or so Internet or computer-related bills pending in
     Congress, encryption is among the first orders of business.
     Subcommittees of both the House and Senate Judiciary committees
     have scheduled hearings this week.
     
     The House bill, known as the Security and Freedom Through
     Encryption Act, or SAFE, legislation backed by virtually everyone
     but the administration, would lift all current export controls on
     encryption software and prohibit a government key-recovery system.
     Despite intense lobbying by the administration, which included
     classified briefings for members of key House committees, the bill
     has been endorsed by the House Commerce and International Relations
     committees. And with more than 250 of the House's 435 members
     cosponsoring the act, sponsoring Representatives Bob Goodlatte,
     Republican of Virginia, and Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, are
     optimistic about getting the bill through the full House as early
     as this month.
     
     The Senate, however, has been less inclined to buck the
     administration. The Senate Commerce Committee passed a bill by
     Senator Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska, and the committee's
     chariman, John McCain, Republican of Arizona, that includes the
     administration-backed key-recovery plan. But there are two other
     Senate encryption bills that are closer to the SAFE act in the
     House and a Judiciary subcommittee hearing is scheduled on the
     issue Thursday.
     
     Still, at a Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Congresss
     first day back, Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat who represents
     California and its technology-rich Silicon Valley, called for
     mandatory key recovery of encrypted software. And Louis J. Freeh,
     the director of the FBI, raised the prospect of also requiring
     Internet service providers to have keys to the data flowing over
     their networks.
     
     "Law enforcement needs to have a system for immediate decryption"
     when a judge determines it is likely that crime is being or is
     about to be committed, Freeh told the Subcommittee on Technology,
     Terrorism and Government Information. "We should also look at
     whether network service providers should have a system for
     immediate decryption."
     
     Encouraged by the Supreme Court's decision striking down the
     Communications Decency Act this summer, an unusually broad cross
     section of advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties
     Union, the Electronic Freedom Foundation, the Business Software
     Alliance and the National Rifle Association are bent on killing
     bills that would regulate encryption technology.
     
     And as was the case with the Communications Decency Act, lawmakers
     backing the administration's call for a key-recovery system are
     warning of dire consequences if Congress fails to enact such a
     system in an effort to thwart terrorists, online pedophiles and
     drug dealers.
     
     "The looming specter of the widespread use of robust, virtually
     uncrackable encryption is one of the most difficult problems
     confronting law enforcement as the next century approaches," Freeh
     told the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this summer. "At stake
     are some of our most valuable and reliable investigative techniques
     and the public safety of our citizens. We believe that unless a
     balanced approach to encryption is adopted that includes a viable
     key infrastructure, the ability of law enforcement to investigate
     and sometimes prevent the most serious crimes and terrorism will be
     severely impaired. Our national security will also be jeopardized."
     
     Opponents of a key recovery system, on the other hand, insist that
     terrorists and drug cartels are smart enough not to use encrypted
     codes to which law enforcement agencies have access. And they argue
     that the current export restrictions on strong encryption developed
     in the United States could put the nation at a competitive
     disadvantage in the fast-growing and fast-changing digital
     communications industry.
     
     Others say it's a serious threat to civil liberties.
     
     "This is equally as serious as the Communications Decency Act,"
     said Shari Steele of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. While the
     Communications Dececny Act "was about freedom of speech, making
     sure that speech was protected online," she said, "encryption is
     about privacy making sure we are able to speak privately, and
     making sure our transactions are private."
     
     In contrast to Clinton's support of proposals like the Internet Tax
     Freedom Act, which would prohibit states from taxing online
     commerce, Steele says the administration's encryption policies will
     stymie Internet development.
     
     "The administration, if anything, is moving in the wrong
     direction," Steele said. "We are very dissatisfied. When we first
     voted for Clinton, there was an expectation that Vice President Al
     Gore was this technologically savvy guy. Instead, he has turned out
     to be a real enemy of the people when it comes to Internet issues."
     
     Software companies insist that the freedom to develop strong
     encryption would prove to be the best weapon against online crime
     because encryption would thwart more thieves and eavesdroppers than
     it would facilitate organized crime and terrorism.
     
     The issue is also changing the perception of Washington among
     high-tech companies. In the wake of the Communications Decency Act,
     and facing a threat on the encryption issue, the computer industry,
     increasingly wary of what it sees as the technical naïveté of
     Congress, is moving quickly to improve its clout through campaign
     donations and lobbying.
     
     According to a recent report by the Center for Responsive Politics,
     the industry donated $7.3 million through political action
     committees, "soft money" and individual contributions to federal
     candidates and parties. That's 52 percent more than was spent in
     the 1991-1992 election cycle. During calendar year 1996, the
     industry spent another $19.9 million on lobbying expenses.
     
     Among the Top 10 of Congressional beneficiaries of this new
     high-tech largesse is Feinstein, who, given her support of the
     FBI's position, is sure to be feeling some pressure as the
     Judiciary Committee prepares to take up the issue. During
     discussion of the Kerrey-McCain bill in July, Feinstein left before
     her constituents from the software industry in the Silicon Valley
     testified -- and after telling representatives of the FBI and the
     National Security Agency that she would defer to their expertise on
     what was a confusing issue.
     
     At Wednesdays subcommittee hearing, Feinstein said "The bottom line
     is, I think nothing short of mandatory key recovery does the job."
       ______________________________________________________________
                                      
     Related Sites
     Following are links to the external Web sites mentioned in this
     article. These sites are not part of The New York Times on the Web,
     and The Times has no control over their content or availability.
     When you have finished visiting any of these sites, you will be
     able to return to this page by clicking on your Web browser's
     "Back" button or icon until this page reappears.
     
     * Security and Freedom Through Encryption
     * Text of the Communications Decency Act
     * American Civil Liberties Union
     * Electronic Frontier Foundation
     * Business Software Alliance
     * Center for Responsive Politics
     * National Rifle Association
       
       ______________________________________________________________
                                      
     
    Jeri Clausing at jeri@nytimes.com welcomes your comments and
    suggestions.
    
                 Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company