KEEP BIG BROTHER'S HANDS OFF THE INTERNET by Senator John Ashcroft
Kris Kennaway
kris at obsecurity.org
Mon Nov 25 15:10:45 EST 2002
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm
[ How ironic ]
KEEP BIG BROTHER'S HANDS OFF THE INTERNET
By Senator John Ashcroft
Republican, Missouri
Chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer
Affairs, Foreign Commerce and Tourism
[Senator Ashcroft takes issue with administration views on the
Internet
and the use of encryption technology.]
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet provides a great opportunity to our country, in
part by representing the most inviting form of communication
ever developed. It draws people together from all corners of
the globe to share and communicate on an unprecedented level,
and brings all branches of government closer to the public that
they serve.
The Internet allows small businesses to reach out across the
globe and conquer the distances between them and potential
customers. Individuals can view merchandise and make purchases
without leaving home. The Internet also holds great promise for
education. Students -- rural, suburban, and urban -- are
increasingly able to access a wealth of information with their
fingertips that was previously beyond their reach.
In order to guarantee that the United States meets the
challenge of this new means of commerce, communication, and
education, government must be careful not to interfere. We
should not harness the Internet with a confusing array of
intrusive regulations and controls. Yet, the Clinton
administration is trying to do just that.
The Clinton administration would like the Federal government to
have the capability to read any international or domestic
computer communications. The FBI wants access to decode,
digest, and discuss financial transactions, personal e-mail,
and proprietary information sent abroad -- all in the name of
national security. To accomplish this, President Clinton would
like government agencies to have the keys for decoding all
exported U.S. software and Internet communications.
This proposed policy raises obvious concerns about Americans'
privacy, in addition to tampering with the competitive
advantage that our U.S. software companies currently enjoy in
the field of encryption technology. Not only would Big Brother
be looming over the shoulders of international cyber-surfers,
but the administration threatens to render our state-of-the-art
computer software engineers obsolete and unemployed.
There is a concern that the Internet could be used to commit
crimes and that advanced encryption could disguise such
activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone
jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then,
should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen
at will and in real time to our communications across the Web?
The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to
protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American
value. Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in
defense of this fundamental right. The state's interest in
effective crime-fighting should never vitiate the citizens'
Bill of Rights.
The president has proposed that American software companies
supply the government with decryption keys to high level
encryption programs. Yet, European software producers are free
to produce computer encryption codes of all levels of security
without providing keys to any government authority. Purchasers
of encryption software value security above all else. These
buyers will ultimately choose airtight encryption programs that
will not be American-made programs to which the U.S. government
maintains keys.
In spite of this truism, the president is attempting to foist
his rigid policy on the exceptionally fluid and fast-paced
computer industry. Furthermore, recent developments in
decryption technology bring into question the dynamic of
government meddling in this industry. Three months ago, the
56-bit algorithm government standard encryption code that
protects most U.S. electronic financial transactions from ATM
cards to wire transfers was broken by a low-powered 90 MHZ
Pentium processor.
In 1977, when this code was first approved by the U.S.
government as a standard, it was deemed unbreakable. And for
good reason. There are 72 quadrillion (72,000 trillion)
different combinations in a 56-bit code. However, with today's
technology these 72 quadrillion combinations can each be tried
in a matter of time.
Two days after this encryption code was broken, a majority of
the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee voted, in accordance with
administration policy, to force American software companies to
perpetuate this already compromised 56-bit encryption system.
In spite of the fact that 128-bit encryption software from
European firms is available on Web sites accessible to every
Internet user. Interestingly, European firms can import this
super-secure encryption technology (originally developed by
Americans) to the United States, but U.S. companies are
forbidden by law from exporting these same programs to other
countries.
I believe that moving forward with the president's policy or
the Commerce Committee's bill would be an act of folly,
creating a cadre of government "peeping toms" and causing
severe damage to our vibrant software industries. Government
would be caught in a perpetual game of catch-up with whiz-kid
code-breakers and industry advances. Senate Majority Leader
Trent Lott has signaled his objection to both proposals.
The leader and I would like to work to bring solid encryption
legislation to the Senate floor. Any proposal should give U.S.
encryption software manufacturers the freedom to compete on
equal footing in the international marketplace, by providing
the industry with a quasi-governmental board that would decide
encryption bit strength based on the level of international
technological development.
U.S. companies are on the front line of on-line technologies --
value-added industries of the future. Consider this: Every
eighteen months, the processing capability of a computer
doubles. The speed with which today's fastest computers
calculate will be slug-like before the next millennium or the
next presidential election comes along. The best policy for
encryption technology is one that can rapidly react to
breakthroughs in decoding capability and roll back encryption
limits as needed.
The administration's interest in all e-mail is a wholly
unhealthy precedent, especially given this administration's
track record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by
which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by
those with illegal intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason
to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open
our ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our
international communications.
Additionally, the full potential of the Internet will never be
realized without a system that fairly protects the interests of
those who use the Internet for their businesses, own
copyrighted material, deliver that material via the Internet,
or individual users. The implications here are far-reaching,
with impacts that touch individual users, companies, libraries,
universities, teachers, and students.
In December 1996, two treaties were adopted by the diplomatic
conference of the World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO) to update international copyright law. These treaties
would extend international copyright law into the digital
environment, including the Internet. However, these treaties do
not provide a comprehensive response to the many copyright
issues raised by the flourishing of the Internet and the
promise of digital technology. We must work to keep the scales
of copyright law balanced, providing important protections to
creators of content, while ensuring their widespread
distribution. In an attempt to meet these goals, I introduced
the Digital Copyright Clarification and Technology Education
Act of 1997.
Equally important, we must begin a process that is structured
to balance the rights of copyright owners with the needs and
technological limitations of those who enable the distribution
of the electronic information, and with the rights and needs of
individual end users. The current treaties and statements are
not sufficient, and include some language that could create
legal uncertainty. This vague language could lead to laws that
ignore technical realities. The language must be clarified
through the enactment of legislation in conjunction with the
Senate's ratification of the treaties.
Another issue that could prevent the Internet from reaching its
potential is taxation. If we tax the Internet prematurely or
allow discriminatory taxing, we may stifle a burgeoning
technological development that holds much commercial, social,
and educational promise for all Americans. Taxation should be
considered only after we have fully examined and understood the
impact that unequivocal taxation would have on this new means
of commerce. The Internet Tax Freedom Act would allow for full
consideration of the opportunities and possible abuses by
placing a moratorium on further taxation of online commerce and
technologically discriminatory taxes. It is important to note
that S. 442 will allow states and local jurisdictions to
continue to collect any tax already levied on electronic
commerce.
On-line communications technology is akin to the Wild West of
the 19th century. To best settle this new frontier, we should
unleash American know-how and ingenuity. The government's
police-state policy on encryption is creating hindrances and
hurdles that will eventually injure our ability to compete
internationally. Government's role should be to break down
barriers, to allow everyone to excel to their highest and best.
__________
Senator Ashcroft is a member of the Senate Commerce, Judiciary,
and Foreign Relations Committees. His Web homepage is: http://
www.senate.gov/~ashcroft/ and his e-mail address is:
john_ashcroft at ashcroft.senate.gov
---------------------------------------------------------------
Global Issues
USIA Electronic Journal, Vol. 2, No. 4, October 1997
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20021125/147f494c/attachment.pgp>
More information about the cryptography
mailing list