Ern Hua's letter is ultimate. ----- The New York Times, October 15, 1996. Is Clinton's Encryption Policy Naive or Shrewd? To the Editor: There is something strange going on with the Clinton Administration's policy on data-scrambling software and Secretary of Commerce Mickey Kantor's defense of it (letter, Oct. 11). If the Administration really wanted to prevent encryption software from falling into hostile hands, it would try to pass a law limiting the type of encryption that can be sold domestically, not just exported. The cumbersome system the Administration proposes may be a measure of its computer naivete. People who are familiar with computer encryption know that strong encryption can be readily had here in the United States over the Internet or telephone lines from dial-up computer bulletin boards. Not long ago I downloaded a copy "Pretty Good Privacy," a system similar to the Rivest-Shamir-Adelman "strong" public-key method. Anyone with a computer, a modem and a phone line could do the same. Or the Government may not be naive at all but merely Machiavelian. Suppose the code breakers at the National Security Agency had managed to develop efficient solutions to "strong" methods. Would it be in the Government's interest to keep that fact a secret and to create a distracting furor by pushing another, weaker (and exportable) encryption system it knows has not a chance being adopted? Then encryption usrs would be lulled into using compromised systems while the National Security Agency decrypts their mail. Warren Wetmore,Hazel Crest, Ill., Oct. 11,1996 ----- To the Editor: Mickey Kantor's Oct. 11 letter is unconvincing. Instead of trying to prohibit strong cryptography, governments should encourage its use. It is the best tool for defending our privacy on the information highway. Jeffrey Shallit, Kitchener, Canada, Oct. 11,1996 The writer is an associate professor of computer science at the University of Waterloo. ----- To the Editor: Mickey Kantor (letter, Oct. 11) says that your Oct. 4 editorial ignores the trend -- especially in Europe -- to require use of key-recovery products and bar the import of stronger encryption products. This ignores that no one wants mandated key recovery. Some important uses of encryption, like secure telephone conversations, do not need key recovery for any reason other than law enforcement intercepts. Mr. Kantor's point on other nations' barring imports is absurd. Since when do we tailor our export limits to the import limits of other nations? The "trend" Mr. Kantor refers to is artificially created by the United States through lobbying efforts. Mr. Kantor uses the word "trend" as if other nations were independently pursuing the key-recovery path, when, in fact, only a few are considering such a move. Some, like Japan, have opposed such a direction. Others, like Sweden, have considered such a move secretly because such a policy cannot withstand democratic scrutiny. Mr. Kantor's letter is a blatant attempt by the Administration to get what it wants for law enforcement and national security agencies without any concern for the nature of the technology or the economic effect of such policies. Ernest Hua, Sunnyvale, Calif., Oct. 11, 1996 The writer is a software engineer. -----