In case you haven't heard: To: Cypherpunks <toad.com!cypherpunks> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 16:51:12 EST Subject: NIST Explains Clipper "Revi NIST Explains Clipper "Review" The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has clarified the role of five experts selected by the agency to evaluate the government's Clipper Chip proposal and the underlying SKIPJACK cryptographic algorithm. In a recent letter to the CPSR Washington Office, NIST asserts that the panel was not established to provide "advice or recommendations" to the government. Rather, according to NIST, the reason for convening the group was "to provide the opportunity for independent experts to satisfy themselves as to the strength and effectiveness of the algorithm in order to encourage widespread acceptance of it in the marketplace." NIST concludes that the panel's evaluation therefore falls outside the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which opens the work of advisory panels to public scrutiny. In response to CPSR's request for documents relevant to the panel's review, the agency reveals that NIST has no records which were made available to or prepared for the five experts for the purpose of enabling them to evaluate the Clipper Chip proposal. Any such records would be in the possession of the National Security Agency, where all activities related to the work of the experts were conducted. This disclosure provides further confirmation that NSA, and not NIST, is the driving force behind the Clipper proposal, despite NIST's public role as the "proposing" agency. The only NIST document released to CPSR is a copy of the invitation sent to the five experts who participated in the evaluation. That letter describes the "key escrow" system and states that the escrowed keys will be made available "only to authorized government officials under proper legal authorizations, usually a court order." This language -- "usually a court order" -- suggests that there will be instances in which the escrow keys will be provided to government agents without presentation of a judicial warrant. The government has never clearly defined what will constitute "legal authorization" under the Clipper system. David L. Sobel CPSR Legal Counsel <dsobel@washofc.cpsr.org>