FBI Calls Privacy Extremists Elitist (09/25/97; 4:30 p.m. EDT) By David Braun, TechWire MONTREAL -- Extremist positions on electronic encryption are not only threatening to normal law enforcement, but they are also elitist and nondemocratic, said Alan McDonald, a senior counsel member with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, at the International Conference on Privacy in Montreal on Thursday. Addressing a workshop on how far society should go in trading off privacy for effective law enforcement, McDonald said privacy activists had fought any balance in proposed encryption legislation. "Such absolute positions threaten not only electronic searches but also conventional searches for data that has been encrypted," McDonald said. Absolute positions on privacy were "pernicious on several levels," McDonald added. The absolute positions "handcuffed" law enforcement while also raising rights for citizens to levels that were unreasonable and that would have been foreign to the nation's founding fathers. Extreme privacy positions were ultimately elitist and nondemocratic in that they presumed the views of a knowing privacy cognoscenti should pre-empt the views of the nation's elected officials and the Supreme Court, McDonald said. McDonald's statements came a day after a key committee of the U.S. House of Representatives rejected an FBI-supported proposal that would have compelled the makers of encryption products to include features that would enable law enforcement agencies to gain immediate and, if necessary, covert access to unscramble any coded data. Extremists presumed that the citizens could not trust the elected government and the Supreme Court to make decisions or to correct mistakes if any are made, McDonald said. "Based on a theory of potential government abuse, important tools commonly used are to be restricted or embargoed," McDonald said. McDonald said efforts in the United States to enhance effective law enforcement search and seizure capabilities had proceeded without harming legitimate privacy concerns. In the area of electronic surveillance, McDonald said, privacy enhancements had frequently received treatment "superior to that required under our Constitution." With minor exceptions, neither the laws nor the cases decided regarding effective law enforcement or privacy had come about with the view that either were absolute in their nature, McDonald said. Law enforcement measures had been tempered by considerations of personal privacy, and privacy laws had been balanced with effective law enforcement. Notwithstanding the substantial threats posed by national and international organized crime, drug cartels, and terrorists, the United States had remained true to its Constitutional moorings, and its commitment to a system of ordered liberties, McDonald said. "When people don't know much about electronic surveillance, they are fearful of it. But when they know Congress passed laws and the Supreme Court reviewed them and that there are numerous constraints and procedures, then it makes sense to them. It seems rational and balanced," McDonald said. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David HM Spector spector@zeitgeist.com Network Design & Infrastructure Security voice: +1 212.580.7193 Amateur Radio: W2DHM (ex-N2BCA) (ARRL life member) GridSquare: FN30AS -.-. --- -. -. . -.-. - .-- .. - .... .- -- .- - . ..- .-. .-. .- -.. .. --- "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?'" --H. G. Wells