I wrote up a letter to the editor on the issue, which I will send to the local newspapers and the major newspapers. I'd like comments, and criticisms so that I may make the letter more effective. I also plan on writing an article in my newsletter _The Free Journal_ on this big brother plan. (I plan on including excerpts from _From Crossbows to Cryptography_ in this "Crypto" issue as well.) Editor: The Clinton administration on Friday unveiled their plan for establishing a standard data encryption system for voice communications. This plan is abhorrent and reeks of Big Brother. President Clinton says that he wants to bring the United States into the twenty-first century. This proposal is bringing us to 1984. First I will mention technical reasons why the system is inadequate. The encryption algorithim is classified. Only a select group of people will be allowed to examine the algorithim for flaws. The members of the cryptographic community emphasize that the only way to make sure that a cryptographic system is secure is to have as many people as possible analyze and try to break it for as long as possible. A system which has been examined by a small segment of the population will not be trusted to be secure. The key used in this algorithim is very small-- it is easily attacked by brute-force. The encryption key is only eighty bits long. Such a small key lends itself to easy decryption by an unauthorized party. It would lend a false sense of security to laypersons in the field who do not realize that a key of such simplicity could be cracked easily by any talented criminal. Apart from the technical flaws in the system, there are many political problems with the recent big brother proposal. First, there is the assumption that the government has a right to spy on its own citizens. The proposal for this wiretap chip includes the registration of keys with two escrow agencies. This is purported to allow law enforcement to keep track of "terrorists" and "drug-dealers." The first flaw in this key-escrow system is that no self-respecting criminal will use a cryptography system which can be easily tapped by law enforcement officials-- they will use strong cryptography. Thus the only people who may end up using the wiretap encryption system will be law-abiding laypeople who don't fully understand cryptography. (Law-abiding citizens who do understand cryptography will use strong cryptography to preserve their privacy from a talented criminal.) The proposal says that in order to obtain the key of a wiretap chip user a law enforcement agency must first establish that they have a valid interest in the key. Translated out of legalese, that means that all a government agency will have to do to get access to all of the private communications between, for example, a lawyer and her client will be to fill out the necessary forms. Registering cryptographic keys with the government is similar to giving the IRS the keys to your house and filing cabinet. The chip is being manufactured exclusively by one company. The release stated that the Attorney shall request (i.e. coerce) telecommunication product manufacturers to use this product. This aspect of the system is a government-mandated monopoly. Such monopolies result in high prices and the elimination of market forces which drive the improvement of technology. (One needs only look at the state of the Soviet Union to see how the lack of market forces affects consumer technology.) What is feared the most from the proposal is that if the wiretap chip becomes the standard, strong cryptography will be declared illegal. If such is the case, then only criminals will have access to strong cryptography. As I have stated above-- the wiretap chip will not be used by criminals because of the obvious flaws in the crypto-system-- criminals will use strong crypto, while law-abiding citizens will have to use a system which can be easily defeated by any criminal. Strong cryptography already exists for data communications, for -free-. Strong cryptography for voice communications for -free- is only a few months away for people who own a personal computer. There is no way that making strong cryptography illegal will stop it-- it will only turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals. Sincerely, Sameer Parekh -- | Sameer Parekh-zane@genesis.MCS.COM-PFA related mail to pfa@genesis.MCS.COM | | Apprentice Philosopher, Writer, Physicist, Healer, Programmer, Lover, more | | "Be God" - Me __ "Specialization is for Insects" - Robert A. Heinlein ____/ \_____________/ \____________________________________________________/