Feinstein answers her critics in the usual way slimy politicians answer critics: Dodge the crucial details and make broad, sweeping, feel-good but substance-less statments. http://www.sjmercury.com/business/feinstein091597.htm Here is my reply via a letter to the editor:
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 13:31:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Ernest Hua <hua@chromatic.com> To: letters@sjmercury.com Subject: Feinstein's ignorance on encryption ...
As with the previous Mercury interview with William Reinsch, I am extremely disappointed with this interview with Feinstein. There was absolutely ZERO attempt to ask Feinstein to answer the tough policy questions in an open forum where ALL facts are present (not just the distorted information presented by the FBI in classified meetings).
Look at these examples of the same tired arguments from the FBI and the NSA, now being spewed by a senator who openly admitted that she does not know much about the issue:
Q: Doesn't government control of encryption technology used by American citizens infringe on their constitutional rights?
A: No one is talking about intrusion on privacy rights. That is important. I would not support an intrusion of privacy.
Everyone outside the law enforcement and the intelligence agencies ARE talking about privacy; that is why everyone wants strong encryption.
When some of the most vocal groups fighting for encryption rights include privacy and civil liberty groups, I really wonder where Feinstein gets her information. Is this just ignorance, living in denial, or "spin"?
... When law enforcement authorities ... obtain a court order, there should be some ability to act on behalf of public safety.
In fact, there is, but the entire focus as been on encryption, as if, in case that door were closed off, law enforcement and intelligence agents would be completely shut out.
Technology has enabled strong encryption, but technology has also left a huge and UNENCRYPTED audit trail giving significant clues to what the user has been doing. San Jose Mercury has even reported on one of the up and coming companies taking advantage of these hidden and very revealing trails of information to significantly boost a civil or a criminal investigation.
Law enforcement is not crippled by encryption. They just have to keep up with technology, which has offered them more advantages than they've ever had before.
Encryption is already being used by criminals, terrorists and drug cartels. ... Imagine the tragedies that might not be prevented if law enforcement officials are unable to decode encrypted files ...
Law enforcement lobbyists like to paint this picture that strong encryption is some sort of technological guarantee of absolute secrecy which has crippled their investigations. In fact, the FBI, when forced by court order to reveal the facts, admitted that no investigations to date were really obstructed. Dorothy Denning, the only pro-law-enforcement academic on this issue, confirmed this in her recent study.
No wonder the FBI fought tooth and nail to keep their internal memos from the public.
People's safety must keep pace with new developments in technology, or we will live to regret it. ... In this case, the industry is being asked to put people's safety ahead of their bottom line.
This is the sort of bogus public safety reasoning that the FBI has been promoting. There is not one single expert outside law enforcement that believes criminals will actually use any kind of government-mandated encryption.
This is not 1960's. Back then, strong encryption could not possibly be in the hands of individuals because they require very sophisticated computers to run. Programming these systems were considered black magic. The few experts on the topic were strongly censored by the NSA.
Today, the same computing power is available in everything from a personal computer to a smart toaster. You can buy a powerful chip for under $2.00 from Fry's. Every engineering, math and science graduate today must have programming skills to be an effective employee. Encryption books are widely available, and the Department of State admitted as much that they could no longer censor these books, even from export to unfriendly nations.
If a terrorist can build a bomb from a $5 watch, he can type in a program to encrypt his plans. So which nasty criminals can the FBI really snoop on? Certainly not the ones building bombs from everyday appliances.
... You replied that ``it seems to me that nothing but some sort of mandatory key recovery does the job.'' Why?
A: There needs to be some means, within the strict confines of due process of law, for recovery of encrypted information
Feinstein is obviously not a Constitutional scholar here. Where in the constitution does it say that law enforcement must be GUARANTEED the means to eavesdrop in ANY circumstance? This sort of "make it up as it is convenient" attitude is why many people have long questioned her ability to genuinely protect civil rights.
Q: The National Research Council ... concluded that ... [the risk of] ... unlimited encryption was outweighed by the positive aspects of unlimited encryption, because that provides the best opportunity for government, corporate and individual computer users to protect themselves from computer crime.
A: ... encryption ... already is being used in some of the most serious crimes. ... Law enforcement officials must maintain the ability to pierce encrypted communications in these kinds of criminal operations.
This is another dodge of the real question: Most of the members of the NRC panel ALSO got the classified briefing. These are the technical and policy experts (that's why they are on the panel in the first place). What makes Feinstein think she is so much smarter than these experts, despite her claims of ignorance on the matter?
Let's be realistic:
1. Feinstein has a very warped view of the Bill of Rights because she has been the target of, among other things, a letter bomb. She is running scared, and will demand nothing short of a crack down from law enforcement, so we cannot expect her to side with anyone AGAINST the wishes of law enforcement. (Just look at her stance on the issue of freedom of speech on the Internet.)
2. Feinstein has clearly stated in previous senate hearings that she is ignorant on this matter, and that she will definitely defer judgement to the law enforcement agencies. Well, she has once again proven her ignorance, but at least she's admitted it in the past. The trouble is that she goes on to take significant policy positions on the matter anyway. Why speak up so strongly on a topic where she's so clueless?
3. Feinstein, like many politicians, does not want to deal with the details of issues because it would mean that she would have to make some very TOUGH questions and decisions. The high tech industry is absolutely against encryption regulations, so she is in a tight spot. No wonder, in that same senate hearing, she left the room before her constituents showed up to testify.
It's difficult to force a coward face reality and answer to real world concerns, and let us keep in mind that the FBI and the NSA have insisted on secret meetings rather than open discussions on this issue. They simply do NOT want to have to face open scrutiny. No matter how big a favor they THINK they are doing for us, they must be reminded that this is an open and democratic society, and that they may not choose to have a secret meeting just because they cannot win in open debate.
----
Ernest Hua, Software Sanitation Engineer Chromatic Research, 615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1707 Phone: 408 752-9375, Fax: 408 752-9301, E-Mail: hua@chromatic.com