Brought to you by the Information Liberation Front Reproduced without permission from Communications Week WHAT 4TH AMENDMENT? HERE COMES THE CLIPPER ENCRYPTION PLAN YOU'RE A CRIMINAL. That person sitting next to you is a criminal, too. All of the people you work with are criminals. How do I know this? I get it straight from the federal government. In fact, the federal government is so certain you're a criminal that the executive branch has just announced a new way to pry into your affairs, steal your correspondence, read your electronic mail, and listen in on your most private conversations. Not only that, but the Clinton administration wants you to pay for the privilege of having the government keep tabs on you. The administration claims that it's doing all of this as a way to fight crime, and since you're the one its targeting, apparently the Clinton administration has decided you're a criminal. By now, of course, you probably know what I'm writing about, but in case you've been in a cave for a couple of weeks, here's a summary. Earlier this month, the administration announced that the government was going ahead with its plans to start using the infamous Clipper chip -- that's the one that encrypts information, but includes a government-sponsored backdoor -- for the Justice and Defense departments. You're going to pay about $2,000 for each of the initial 50,000 or so Clipper-encrypted phones and similar terminal devices the government buys. Once the government starts using Clipper equipment, the plan is for these agencies to require anyone dealing with them to use it also. Meanwhile, you must provide a way for the government to listen in to your telephone system. You get to pay for the new or modified equipment. Finally, sources tell us, the adminis- tration plans to outlaw any form of encryption other than that approved by the government. You get to pay for any changes these new systems require, too. No doubt you're thinking that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is supposed to prevent your papers and effects, among other things, from un- reasonable search and seizure. Is it reasonable to be required to hand over materials in a form the government wishes so that it can search you conveniently? It's not unlike being required to carry on your phone conversations in English for the convenience of government listeners who may not understand, say, pig latin. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. In his debate on the ratifiation of the Constitution, Patrick Henry predicted that the gov- ernment'may, unless the general government be restrained by a Bill of Rights ". . . go into your cellars and rooms, and search, ran sack and measure everything you eat, drink and wear. They ought to be restrained." Of course, Henry didn't know computers would exist, but he knew of their analogue at the time-a person's papers and effects and that's why he fought successfully for an amendment to restrain the government. Now it appears that the government would slip its restraints. Apparently, in this new world of technology and digital communications, prying into one's affairs has become difficult. It's inconvenient to search an office, after all. It requires work. Instead, the government wants to read your electronic papers and effects, and it wants you to pay for it. The Bill of Rights? I guess that's become inconvenient, too. ------------- Wayne Rash Jr. is a Washington-based networking systems integrator. He can be reached on MCI Mail as WRASH on CompuServe at 72205,221 and on the Internet at rash@access.digex.com. The opinions expressed are his own.