Reactions to House Intelligence Committee Vote (NYT)

      September 12, 1997
      
Mockery and Fear Greet Encryption Plan

      By PETER WAYNER
      
     T he 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.
     
     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.
     
     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.
     
     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.
     
     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 something that would be forbidden after 2000
     by the House's Intelligence Committee's version of the bill.
     
     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.
     
     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."
     
     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.
     
     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."
     
     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."
     
     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."
                                      
                 Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company