House NSC amends SAFE Bill (CNET)

   Overhaul of SAFE bill approved
   By Dan Goodin
   September 9, 1997, 5:25 p.m. PT
   
   In a setback to the high-tech industry and privacy advocates in
   cyberspace, a House committee today overwhelmingly approved an
   amendment that would overhaul the Security and Freedom through
   Encryption Act.
   
   The amendment, passed 45 to 1 by the House National Security
   Committee, would radically change the SAFE bill by reaffirming
   government export regulations on cryptography.
   
   In essence, the amendment would return control of all encryption
   exports to the president, who would set a "maximum level" for
   exportable encryption once a year. After a one-time review, all
   products that didn't exceed that limit would be allowed to be
   exported.
   
   Sponsored by Reps. Curt Weldon (R-Pennsylvania) and Ron Dellums
   (D-California), the amendment is a far cry from the original impetus
   of the SAFE act, which set to significantly loosen government export
   controls on encryption.
   
   "My amendment sets reasonable limits on the export of encryption
   technology--limits measured by a product's threat to our national
   security," Weldon said in a prepared statement. "This amendment
   represents a responsible compromise that allows our companies to
   compete while still protecting U.S. national security interests."
   
   Opponents of export controls saw it a different way. "This amendment
   would hinder the widespread availability of encryption," said Jonah
   Seiger, a spokesman for the Center for Democracy and Technology in
   Washington, D.C. "Until now, this bill has been moving in a positive
   direction for us. This is a setback."
   
   The amendment might also prohibit current exceptions for the export of
   certain types of encryption software, such as those for banks, he
   noted.
   
   The bill now heads for the House Intelligence Committee, where further
   amendments are likely to be added. Both the Intelligence and the
   National Security committees tend to favor export controls, because
   they view encryption as a threat to information-gathering activities
   by U.S. military and law enforcement officials.
   
   "Unfortunately, it's very hard when you put privacy up against
   national security," added Seiger. "Traditionally, privacy loses, and
   that's in part what happened today."
   
   Besides sparking criticism from civil libertarians and many within the
   computer industry, the amendment doesn't sit well with officials at
   the Commerce Department, which administers encryption export controls.
   Undersecretary of Commerce William Reinsch told Reuters that he
   opposes a portion of the amendment that would give the secretary of
   defense veto power over encryption export decisions.
   
   "Giving the secretary of defense a veto is inconsistent with the
   president's executive order and inconsistent with the policies of four
   prior administrations," Reinsch said. "The administration thinks all
   relevant agencies should have a seat at the table and none should have
   a veto."
   
   Today's amendment and any amendments that may be offered by the
   Intelligence Committee are by no means a defeat of the bill. Instead,
   they would have to be reconciled with versions of the bill already
   approved by the House Judiciary and International Relations
   committees. That reconciliation most likely would have to happen on
   the House floor. The legislation has 252 cosponsors.
   
   Still, there is increasing speculation that it will never see the
   light of day. "I am not sure if the bill will even make it to the
   House floor this session, and in light of its controversy I am not
   sure why it would be scheduled," said Floyd Spence, chairman of the
   National Security Committee, at today's hearing. Lobbyists speaking on
   background agreed the bill may stall before reaching the floor, citing
   other pending bills that usually receive a higher priority from
   Congress.
   
   Staff aides to Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-Virginia), the bill's sponsor,
   could not immediately be reached for comment.
   
   Copyright © 1995-97 CNET, Inc. All rights reserved.