December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Report from Germany on "backdoor" net-censorship
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Criteria for the ICTF's proceed will be developed, evaluated and >continuously updated by the Internet Medienrat. As an independant >gremium, the Internet Medienrat tries to achieve a social consensus >in the use of online media without government [sic! um] censorship. Is that any relation to the Judenrat that ran the inside of the Ghettos and Concentrated Camps during the late unpleasantness in Deutschland? DCF

1 0

Re: Anonymous computer contractors
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:24 PM 6/9/96 -0500, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >[we were discussing jimbell's assassination clearinghouse - Igor] > >> > Maybe your hint really makes sense and after initial depopulation the >> > citizens will use different, more considerate, ways of dealing with each >> > other. >> >> I think it would take very few 'depopulation' incidents to improve manners. >> Humans, like rats, are very good at learning from others' mistakes. > >Alright, but since quite a few people have quite a few present enemies, >the depopulation may be severe enough. I disagree. While each of us may arguably have a number of enemies, if our lists were compared I think most of those enemies can be located in a relatively tiny group of people, most of whom exercise government authority. Eliminate them, and a relatively small number of criminals, and it'll be a rather safe and pleasant society. > The only hope is that the assassin market will become tight. I think that the _need_ will drop long before the supply of potential assassins will. Resignations will occur, and criminals will straighten up quickly. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

More on LolitaWatch
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.internetworld.com/iw-online/July96/news.html CDA Watch: DoJ Proposes Tagging Underage Users According to the press release, Nubility Inc. had released LolitaWatch, a network utility that detects "nubile young teens" online by checking for the federally mandated "age bit" in TCP/IP packets. But like the original novel, which parodied an older man's lust for a lascivious teen, LolitaWatch is a hoax, designed to illustrate the dangers of attaching age information to this workhorse Internet protocol. The proposal for an age bit is a serious one. Advanced during the Philadelphia court challenge to the Communications Decency Act (CDA), it's part of what American Library Association (ALA) attorney Bruce Ennis calls the Department of Justice's (DoJ's) "efforts to redefine the way the CDA is written." [...] If the high court strikes down the CDA, Congress will try again. Jack Fields (R-Texas), chair of the House telecommunications subcommittee, said in May: "We should be ready with a response--[pornography] is a real problem. I have a six-year old and I get concerned about that. I want a real solution that works. The CDA was driven by emotion and not by real policy." Forty years ago, media hype gave Lolita a reputation as an obscene novel and prompted the French, Argentine, and New Zealand governments to censor it. But Vladimir Nabokov's work contained not one explicitly sexual passage. Without reading the book, customs agents never knew that it was a sad parody of an old man's fantasy lust for a young girl. The Net censors seem to have found in the Internet a modern Lolita--which they understand just about as well as the 1950s customs agents understood Nabokov. --Declan McCullagh

1 0

Fight-Censorship Dispatch #13: The Second Great Net Panic
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fight-Censorship Dispatch #13 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Second Great Net Panic ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Declan McCullagh / declan(a)well.com / Redistribute freely ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this dispatch: The Second Great Net Panic grips Washington, DC Bruce Taylor tries a "finger" gambit DFC online copyright action alert, press conference Deputy Atty General slams Net, calls for central control Al Gore decries "unwarranted censorship?" June 9, 1996 WASHINGTON, DC -- As a wet spring steams into a muggy summer, the Second Great Net Panic has gripped the nation's capital. It could be the humidity. The same waterlogged air that makes my keyboard stick about this time every year forces lobbyists and legislators indoors to catered receptions and air-conditioned hearing rooms where they catalog the dangers of the Net. Or perhaps election year politics lends this scaremongering rhetoric its rough, serrated edge. Whatever the cause, it's clear that last year's cyberporn scare -- centering around online smut and leading to the passage of the Communications Decency Act -- is dwarfed by this year's fevered attempts to control the Net. That is, you ain't seen nothin' yet. In the last two weeks: * The Federal Trade Commission held two days of hearings to decide how to regulate web sites that collect personal information about children. * Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) announced at a Senate investigations subcommittee hearing that his suspicions of evil cryptohackers lurking on the Net mean the CIA and NSA must be permitted to snoop domestically, a practice long prohibited by law. * The Clinton administration responded to Congressional attempts to liberalize export controls on strong encryption with a "Clipper III" white paper, and a blue-ribbon NRC report recommended only minor changes in U.S. crypto export policy. * The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings where witnesses from the Hollywood copyright lobby testified that copyright thieves plague the Net. * A House Judiciary subcommittee is planning a final markup of HR2441, a terribly restrictive online copyright bill similar to one the Senate is considering, this Wednesday. * The Defense Information Systems Agency released a report claiming that hackers tried to break into Pentagon systems 250,000 times in 1995. * The 1997 Defense Authorization Bill will give the White House six months to report on "the national policy on protecting the national information infrastructure from strategic attack." * At the first-ever "CyberCongress" hearing held by a House committee, representatives complained about being flamed through anonymous remailers and said there should be accountability online. * Today's Sunday Washington Post featured an article by Richard Leiby on the first page of the Outlook section bashing "self-indulgent dross" and "crap" on the Net: "I took out the Internet trash and found there wasn't much left." * Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), chair of Senate Judiciary, held a hearing on June 4 where family values activists testified in support of Hatch's bill that gives you 15 years for creating or viewing a GIF that "appears to be" or is said to be kiddie porn -- even if it's actually a morphed photo of an adult. * Journalist Lew Koch unearthed an alarmist speech by Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick slamming not just nonescrowed crypto but the "social problems" of the Net -- and calling for a new "Manhattan Project" and even a new Federal agency to start "devising and implementing solutions." That's the bad news, and the good news is far from reassuring. Some Congressperns are starting to learn about the Net and the Internet Caucus' membership is growing. The computer industry has begun to become more involved in the legislative process, but they're up against well-entrenched opposition. The EFF's Mike Godwin had it right when he wrote to me earlier today: "Every agency wants a bite of jurisdiction over the Internet." I'm not placing any bets on the eventual outcome of the Second Great Net Panic, especially when protect-our-children rhetoric comes laced with protect-our-country slogans. But I know the summer's starting and some of the keys on my workstation are starting to stick. Yesterday I spent a sweaty afternoon performing open-keyboard surgery to try and get my home row working again. So I'm not too optimistic... +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ BRUCE TAYLOR TRIES A "FINGER" GAMBIT +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ Bruce Taylor, the former Federal smut-buster and chief architect of the CDA, is at it again. This time the Brucester is weighing in on the New York CDA case with an expanded copy of the amicus brief he first filed in the Philly lawsuit in which I'm a plaintiff. When I spoke with him last Thursday, Taylor sketched out his latest argument in favor of the CDA -- that it's constitutional because the "finger" service can be modified to return info about whether someone's an adult or a child. "I just learned about 'finger' a few weeks ago," Taylor said. His brief reads: Though the testimony is disputed between the parties, there is evidence in the record to show that there ways to comply with the CDA that are presently available, other means that are possible and trivial to institute, and there will undoubtedly be more and easier ways to comply in the future. Potential mechanisms of compliance include... agreement on an -L18 or digital or access provider user or some other mechanism or combination of devices which allow content providers to identify adult visitors to their sites, pages, or GIFs and thereby exclude children (such as refinement of the PRESENT METHOD OF FINGERING to identify the name of a visitor so that the visitor's access provider or ISP releases the users age as well as his or her identity -- a fact no less anonymous), [Emphasis mine. --DBM] Of course, Taylor's suggestion of putting an "A" or "C" (adult or child) flag in the info returned by finger creates more problems than it solves. Most online services don't provide information about users via finger daemons. More to the point, such a proposal would let any unscrupulous net.lurker troll for "C" flags -- not exactly the best way to protect children! +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ DIGITAL FUTURE COALITION ACTION ALERT, PRESS CONFERENCE +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ In response to a planned House subcommittee markup of its ill-bred copyright legislation this Wednesday, the Digital Future Coalition is planning a press conference at 9:30 am this Tuesday, June 11, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Presenters at the press conference include the Consumer Federation of America, the National Education Association, the American Committee for Interoperable Systems (including Sun Microsystems and America Online), and the Home Recording Rights Coalition. Other members of the DFC include the American Library Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, People for the American Way, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- DIGITAL FUTURE COALITION ACTION ALERT From dfc(a)alawash.org Imminent Congressional action on NII copyright bill threatens consumers, students, and other Internet users Your immediate contacts with key House Judiciary Subcommittee Members critical! The House of Representatives Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property will meet in the next few days to vote on H.R. 2441, the NII Copyright Protection Act. Call subcommittee members who represent you or to your institution NOW and tell them that this badly imbalanced bill shouldn't be voted on unless and until all of the following problems are addressed. If passed in its current form, H.R. 2441 would: * Make it a crime to manufacture the next generation of VCRs, personal computers and other digital devices needed for recreational and educational use by adding a sweeping and overbroad new Section 1201 to the Copyright Act; * Make simply browsing the Internet a violation of the law without a license from copyright owners; * Prevent teachers from using computers to their full potential in "distance education" efforts that bring electronic classrooms to kids, especially in rural communities and for the disabled; * Subject computer system operators -- including online services and networks at schools and libraries -- to potentially crippling liability for the copyright violations of their users. Please immediately fax a letter to -- AND CALL -- all members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property who represent you or an institution with which you are affiliated. These contacts must be made NO LATER THAN Tuesday, June 11 and preferably sooner. Address contacts to the Congressperson, but direct your letter or call to the appropriate staffer. [URL at the end. -DBM] +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ DEPUTY ATTY GENERAL SLAMS NET, CALLS FOR CENTRAL CONTROL +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ It's scaremongering at its finest. That's all I can think after I read the text of a speech Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick gave earlier this year at the Air Force Academy. Gorelick starts with the time-honored horror gambit of terrorists, child pornographers, organized crime groups, and hackers -- but then moves on to rail against the social problems she's found on the Net. "Email flames" and "faceless" chat rooms are threats to family values, she claims. Then she calls for a centralized government agency to deal with the problem of the Internet. Clearly, she says, we need a "Manhattan Project" to fight cybernastiness and net.terrorists: We clearly need one focal point in the government to take the lead in addressing this issue comprehensively -- to develop national policy, coordinate the necessary other agencies, and with industry on developing solutions. We need the equivalent of the "Manhattan Project" to address the technological issues and to help us harden our infrastructures against attack. It might be that we can just designate an existing agency to take the lead. Or we may need a new agency or some interagency body to perform the task... Jeanne Devoto (jdevoto(a)well.com) writes: [It's an] attempt to conflate the threat of computer intrusion with the "threat" of open access to a mass medium. If such a conflation is widely successful, we could see "We must pass this measure to license Internet users/ban indecent language/impose FCC regulation on ISPs - in order to combat the threat of computer crime!" Computers are the equivalent of nuclear weapons? Maybe treating software as a munition makes sense after all. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ AL GORE DECRIES "UNWARRANTED CENSORSHIP?" +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ Al Gore sure knows how to play to an audience -- even if it's a bunch of computer geeks who don't like how the White House has embraced and defended the Communications Decency Act. During his commencement address at MIT on June 7, Gore said: But let me also state my clear and unequivocal view that a fear of chaos cannot justify unwarranted censorship of free speech, whether that speech occurs in newspapers, on the broadcast airwaves -- or over the Internet. Our best reaction to the speech we loathe is to speak out, to reject, to respond, even with emotion and fervor, but to censor -- no. That has not been our way for 200 years, and it must not become our way now. Talk is cheap. It's now possible for Washington politicians to speak out against the CDA -- but only because so many mainstream industry and academic groups coalesced around the ALA/CIEC lawsuit. When it counted, Gore did nothing to halt the morality crusaders who pushed the "indecency" standard through Congress. In fact, he embraced the bill, saying in an interview with the Wall Street Journal: This is an early Christmas for consumers. It's a terrific bill... Every concern the president expressed about the initial legislation has been dealt with on a bipartisan basis. He also issued a statement on December 20, 1996: Today we had a victory for the American economy and the American consumer with the bipartisan agreement to create a telecommunications industry for the 21st Century in a way that will lower prices, increase and improve services in telecommunications and preserve the diversity of voices and viewpoints in television and radio that are essential to our democracy. Stay tuned for more reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- A clarification to Dispatch #12: Cherry v. Reno has not yet been formally consolidated with Shea v. Reno. Mentioned in this CDA update: Deputy Atty Gen Jamie Gorelick's speech slamming Net, calling for controls: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2733 Complete DFC copyright Action Alert, with legislator contact info: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2740 Declan McCullagh on "LolitaWatch" and -L18 -- July '96 Internet World: http://www.internetworld.com/iw-online/July96/news.html Declan McCullagh on CDA hearings -- June '96 Internet World: http://www.internetworld.com/iw-online/June96/news.html Bruce Taylor's amicus "finger" brief in NYC CDA lawsuit: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2736 NRC crypto report now online, thanks to John Young: http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~jya/nrcindex.htm Brock Meeks on Sen. Sam Nunn's plans for domestic snooping: http://www.hotwired.com/netizen/96/23/campaign_dispatch3a.html Al Gore speaks at MIT about dangers of net.censorship: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2737 Al Gore's 12/95 statement on Telecommunications Act of 1996: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=478 Al Gore calls Telecommunications Act "early Christmas" present: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=469 Al Gore speaks at Penn, greeted by anti-CDA protests: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=1170 Creative Incentive Coalition on copyright, pro-HR2441: http://www.cic.org/ Digital Future Coalition on copyright, anti-HR2441: http://www.ari.net/dfc/ Brock Meeks on online copyright: http://www.hotwired.com/muckraker/96/20/index3a.html U.S. Congressional Internet Caucus: http://www.house.gov/white/internet_caucus/netcauc.html Fight-Censorship list <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/> Rimm ethics critique <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/rimm/> Int'l Net-Censorship <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/international/> Justice on Campus <http://joc.mit.edu/> This document and previous Fight-Censorship Dispatches are archived at: <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/> To subscribe to future Fight-Censorship Dispatches and related announcements, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" in the body of a message addressed to: majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu Other relevant web sites: <http://www.vtw.org/> <http://www.epic.org/> <http://www.aclu.org/> <http://www.cdt.org/> <http://www.ala.org/> <http://www.eff.org/> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Obscenity checkpoints
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Maryville-Alcoa (TN) Daily Times, June 3, 1996. `Calvin' Decals Catching Some Heat Auto displays may be deemed `obscene' By Justin Cress Tennessee motorists might need to be more discriminating in the future about the statement their automobiles are making. A recent warning issued to a South Carolina woman for displaying an "obscene" bumper sticker has caused some controversy about that state's obscenity laws. Decals portraying Calvin, of Bill Waterson's popular "Calvin and Hobbes" comic strip, urinating on assorted objects of ridicule are sweeping the Southeast. The decals' increased visibility prompts the question: Is it obscentity or simply bad taste? Patti Redden of McConnells, S.C., was surprised to find, while being stopped at a highway patrol checkpoint, that the reproduction displayed in her rear window was considered offensive and illegal according to state ordinances. Her version depicted the letters "IRS" receiving the Calvinesque treatment. Like South Carolina, Tennessee's obscenity laws prohibit the use of "patently offensive" stickers, window-signs, or other markings on a motor vehicle. An opinion handed down in 1989 by the state defines patently offensive as "that which goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in describing or representing such matters," especially when pertaining to excretory functions. Sharon Curtis-Flair, public information officer of the Tennessee Attorney General's Office, expects to see renewed interest in the state's laws. "We went through this before in 1988 with (another questionable bumper sticker)," said Curtis-Flair. "The law has really not been tested yet. It's just never been challenged." (...)

1 0

Re: Why PGP isn't so ubiquitous (was NRC Session Hiss)
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:43 PM 6/3/96 -0700, Joel McNamara wrote: > (I'm sure the name "wizards" is trademarked by MS, so they won't be called > that). You are free to use the word "wizard" provided that they look, feel, and work much like what Microsoft calls a "wizard" -- see the Microsoft UI guidelines. This demand by Microsoft is pretty reasonable. Now if it had been Apple or lotus they probably would have declared that you could not write anything that looked, felt, or worked much like a wizard. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

COST CA/WWW Security
by sead＠cost.se 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To whom it may concern: This message is based on some questions recently posted at this mailing list concerning the issues of certification technology, certification authorities and related security applications, especially Secure WWW syste, combined with usage of certificates. For all interested, I would like to invite you to visit our WWW server (http://www.cost.se) where you may find all the information about our current security products. You may also browse our CA infrastructure. In case of any further question, please contact me directly. Regards, Sead Muftic ____________________________________________ Sead Muftic COST - Computer Security Technologies CST AB E-mail: sead(a)cost.se Tel: +46-8-16 16 92 Fax: +46-8-471-7722

1 0

New Type2.list/Pubring.mix
by John A. Perry 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Everyone, I've created a new type2.list/pubring.mix combination on jpunix.com. The most notable change is that the q(a)c2.org has been removed from the list. After several spot checks over the weekend I noticed the ncognito remailer producing sporadic pings so I left it on the list. Also, please note that the middleman remailer has changed nym servers from alpha.c2.org to nym.jpunix.com. The files are available by WWW at http://www.jpunix.com as well as by anonymous FTP at ftp.jpunix.com. John Perry - perry(a)alpha.jpunix.com - PGP-encrypted e-mail welcome! WWW - http://www.jpunix.com PGP 2.62 key for perry(a)jpunix.com is on the keyservers. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMbv9H1OTpEThrthvAQEyewQAqHY5duExLgUQBSf/EQOshXCevQReOKY4 LyVJ4GODBY626OxSUNvi+9+mlJs/0oW2tQ0iSuz3EeEBLrZw0m02wsCPtyGgojd+ hJd+T717sUX9xQ8lsiZHWZ27+Hvb0a8Y2yJ0ugYAKg5jTFfbSkxgpodSXdorqi7c Mlt6fLof080= =QCge -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Gore's speech writers
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:02 AM 6/10/96, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote: > Sounds good but I had to laugh when I heard it... is he at odds with >other members of the administration, or is this rhetoric? > [Gore speech elided] You want a serious answer? "Speech writers." Guys at the level of Gore rarely compose their own thoughts. They depend almost wholly on speech writers. William Safire, Patrick Buchanan, etc. (I don't follow Clinton and Gore, so I don't know who their speech writers are.) I read an interesting op-ed piece about how wonderful Bob Dole's resignation-from-the-Senate speech was, about how resonant and thoughtful it was. But the piece went on to point out that the speech was "un-Dole-like." Turns out it was written by Mark Helprin, a former WSJ writer and current novelist. Dole is just a typical politician. Gore is also just a typical politician. To an MIT or CMU crowd he'll give a speech about the importance of free speech. To a San Francisco crowd he'll give a speech about the need to create methods of self-policing of hate speech and limits on speech critical of gays. To a graduating class at "The Farm" he'll give a speech about the reasons the CIA and NSA must wiretap all communications. To his St. Alban's 30th Reunion buddies he'll reminisce about how much fun it was to sit there on Dad's lawn overlooking the Potomac smoking dope. To the Drug Enforcement Administration he'll give a pep talk on how DARE is successfully getting more and more children to narc out their parents. And so it goes. Politicians say what they think their audience wants to hear. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

NYT on Crypto Policy
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The New York Times, June 10, 1996, p. A10. The New Encryption Universe [Editorial] The development of inexpensive computer programs and hardware that scramble telephone calls and computer messages to prevent eavesdropping is rapidly transforming the world of cryptography. Once largely the domain of governments and their intelligence services, encryption technology is now commonly used by corporations, banks, securities firms and individual computer operators. It is time to revise Government encryption policy to fit this new universe. A panel of the National Research Council makes a convincing case for doing just that after a careful review of encryption issues. The panel calls on the Government to abandon its effort to limit the development and availability of advanced encryption technology. The Clinton Administration has fought to preserve the Government's ability to access commercial and individual communications for law enforcement purposes by encouraging adoption of a single encryption standard that Government agencies could track and decipher if needed. The Research Council panel leans the other way, urging the commercial development of powerful encryption software even though it would make wiretapping more difficult. It also recommends that Washington ease restrictions on exports of encryption technology. The Government has long framed the debate over commercial encryption around its need to fight crime through wiretapping. The panel recognizes the usefulness of court-authorized wiretaps. But the panel suggests that a more important issue is the ability of the private sector to transfer confidential financial and other data over telecommunications pathways without interception. The Clinton Administration wants the private sector to adopt a type of encryption technology, known as key escrow, that would give the Government the ability to unscramble private phone or computer messages with court authorization and thereby preserve its wiretap capability. But the policy has so far failed several practical tests. The private sector has not voluntarily adopted a Government-controlled technology. In addition, encryption programs are already available that allow almost anyone with a computer and modem to work around Government-controlled technology. One sophisticated system would allow two strangers -- people who had swapped no private passwords -- to read each other's encoded messages. It seems likely that the Administration approach will not succeed. If so, the danger is that Washington might move to outlaw encryption technology it has not approved, a step that would grossly violate American civil liberties. The best way for the Government to protect its ability to eavesdrop on domestic and foreign criminals is to stay technically ahead of them. The panel recommends vigorous Government research programs to that end. The Research Council group would permit American computer companies to export more powerful encryption software than currently permitted. Foreigners already have access to encryption systems that are more powerful than those American companies are allowed to sell. The export restrictions do nothing to keep encryption software out of the hands of criminals and hostile governments, but needlessly drive American exports out of foreign markets. The panel's conclusions are especially credible because its membership was not tilted against the Government. The 16-member panel was led by Kenneth Dam, a former Deputy Secretary of State, and included Benjamin Civiletti, a former Attorney General, and Ann Caracristi, a former deputy director of the National Security Agency. The Clinton Administration should take notice. It needs a new encryption policy. --

1 0