An Attempt to Hobble SAFE Crypto Bill
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:03:33 -0800 From: "--Todd Lappin-->" <telstar@wired.com> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/5492.html An Attempt to Hobble House Crypto Bill by Rebecca Vesely 9:08am 25.Jul.97.PDT A Republican opponent of a House bill that would loosen controls on the use and export of encryption is circulating an amendment that would effectively cripple the legislation. The amendment, by Representative Benjamin Gilman (R-New York), who chairs the International Relations Committee, would make it unlawful to "manufacture, distribute, sell, or import any product within the United States that can be used to encrypt communications or information if the product does not permit the real-time decryption of such encrypted communications or information." This means that if law-enforcement officials could not crack an encrypted file within 24 hours - the time that FBI director Louis Freeh and other law enforcement officials say is reasonable for accessing information related to a crime - that strength of encryption would be illegal. The amendment set a civil penalty of US$100,000 for such violations. Currently, the most complex programs that can be cracked so quickly use 40-bit algorithms. The relative ease of breaking such code makes it nearly worthless on the marketplace, the high-tech industry has warned. Stronger encryption - 56-bit and 128-bit algorithms are being employed in many products now - is widely viewed as a cornerstone to the development of electronic commerce. Stronger code can safeguard data such as credit-card numbers as it travels over networks. Gilman had the amendment in hand earlier this week when his panel marked up the Security and Freedom through Encryption Act by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia). The bill has been condemned by the government's chief law-enforcement and national-security officials because it would prevent domestic controls on encryption while relaxing export controls. The FBI and National Security Agency want a domestic key-recovery system to wiretap digital communications. Gilman was unsuccessful in trying to insert another provision during the mark-up - one to give the president the power to deny crypto export licenses on national-security grounds. "The second amendment was a staff proposal that basically was dependent on what happened to the first amendment," said Jerry Lipson, spokesman for the House International Relations Committee. "There was no sentiment that this one should be introduced when the first one failed." A staffer for a congressman who supports the Goodlatte bill said that the new amendment was a "scare tactic" meant to show committee members that law enforcement won't stand for a relaxed approach to encryption policy. Indeed, FBI director Freeh met one-on-one with 10 International Relations panel members for hour-long sessions in the days before the mark-up, the staffer said. Nine of the 10 voted for the bill anyway. Some staffers and observers suggest that the Gilman amendment could be introduced when the bill goes to the Select Committee on Intelligence. Although the legislation has 214 co-sponsors in the House, none are members of that panel. And the bill still must reach two other committees before it goes to a full House vote: Commerce and National Security. The deadline for all committees to address the bill is 5 September. "They don't draft amendments like this for the heck of it," said Alan Davidson, staff counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology. "It's a glimpse at what could be a very frightening future." Copyright © 1993-97 Wired Ventures, Inc. and affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
Welcome to the USA...please check your keys at the door. (Or you will be violated)
This means that if law-enforcement officials could not crack an encrypted file within 24 hours - the time that FBI director Louis Freeh and other law enforcement officials say is reasonable for accessing information related to a crime - that strength of encryption would be illegal. The amendment set a civil penalty of US$100,000 for such violations.
Defence counsel: Your honour the FBI agent could have cracked my clients grocery list within 24 hours if he hadn't taken a long lunch break at Hooters Topless Bar & Grill and not overlooked that he was running his NifTY War3Z crAk3R v0.3 against the wrong file. Prosecutor: Could not Defence: Could so Prosecutor: Irrelevant your auspiciousness, the fact is the grocery list was not decrypted in 24 hours. Judge: I sentence the defendant to $100 000 penalty or in default 15 years at a federal re-education facility. Defence: But your worthiness it was only a $35 grocery list! Judge: Anyone seen my gavel? -- .////. .// Charles Senescall apache@quux.apana.org.au o:::::::::/// apache@bear.apana.org.au apache@gargoyle.apana.org.au
::::::::::\\\ Finger me for PGP PUBKEY Brisbane AUSTRALIA '\\\\\' \\ Apache
: http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/5492.html : : : An Attempt to Hobble House Crypto Bill : : by Rebecca Vesely : : 9:08am 25.Jul.97.PDT A Republican opponent of a House : bill that would loosen controls on the use and export of : encryption is circulating an amendment that would : effectively cripple the legislation. : : The amendment, by Representative Benjamin Gilman : (R-New York), who chairs the International Relations : Committee, would make it unlawful to "manufacture, : distribute, sell, or import any product within the United : States that can be used to encrypt communications or : information if the product does not permit the real-time : decryption of such encrypted communications or : information." This is interesting in a perverse sort of way. Notice that it does not purport to forbid the _use_ of strong crypto. Is software--- especially if it is not for sale, but just given away---a product? Does writing software amount to manufacturing it? It actually does a very nice job of raising the first amendment issues that are ultimately going to kill export controls, as well as import controls, as applied to software. It would seem that, unless one believes that the first amendment only protects pornographers, but not programmers, that this proposed legislation is either (i) blatantly unconstitutional or (ii) totally ineffective (since, if it is not unconstitutional, it could not be applied to the writing, distributing, importing, or even selling of those texts that we call programs.) -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists
At 12:22 PM -0700 7/25/97, Peter D. Junger wrote:
This is interesting in a perverse sort of way. Notice that it does not purport to forbid the _use_ of strong crypto. Is software--- especially if it is not for sale, but just given away---a product? Does writing software amount to manufacturing it?
It actually does a very nice job of raising the first amendment issues that are ultimately going to kill export controls, as well as import controls, as applied to software. It would seem that, unless one believes that the first amendment only protects pornographers, but not programmers, that this proposed legislation is either (i) blatantly unconstitutional or (ii) totally ineffective (since, if it is not unconstitutional, it could not be applied to the writing, distributing, importing, or even selling of those texts that we call programs.)
I agree. Far better to have a law "so bad, so blatantly unconstitutional" that it _must_ be struck down, thus giving freedom to encrypt as one wishes the endorsement it needs. The Beltway Bandits need to resist the temptation to "work the issues" and help craft a compromise bill which is still bad but not nearly so blatantly unconstitutional, as this might do some real mischief by delaying the overturning for many years. (And, in my opinion, the modern American system is filled with thousands of examples of laws inconsistent with original Constitutional intent, but not so blatantly clearcut that the Supremes would have to act. The "death of a thousand cuts," or the "frog in boiling water," whatever metaphor one prefers.) Better that the "cyber rights" groups simply take an absolutist stance on all of these issue, about cryptography, labelling, etc. And no legislation is needed, as the Constitution is pretty clearcut on the basic issues. --Tim May --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Tim May <tcmay@got.net> wrote:
(And, in my opinion, the modern American system is filled with thousands of examples of laws inconsistent with original Constitutional intent, but not so blatantly clearcut that the Supremes would have to act. The "death of a thousand cuts," or the "frog in boiling water," whatever metaphor one prefers.)
The Supremes can easily dismiss the Constitution any time they like by using the magic phrase "Society's Overwhelming Interest." We saw a good example of that today, in a ruling which said that Society's Overwhelming Interest in protecting its citizen(-unit)s outweighed the right of specific terminally ill citizen(-unit)s to smoke marijuana to relieve intractable pain. Even the First Ammendment falls victim to this phrase when the Supremes rule that Society's Overwhelming Interest in protecting its children makes it possible to commit a felony using only a Playboy, a Jack and Jill, scissors, and a piece of scotch tape. Similar arguments come out of the Court all the time about Society's Overwhelming Interest in "preserving the family," "protecting children," "empowering parents," "thwarting terrorists", and generally preserving the right of the state to rule, to execute, to collect taxes, and to rip out the spleen of anyone who publicly objects. Those who regard the Supreme Court as some sort of inviolable bulwark surrounding our First Ammendment crypto rights are probably setting themselves up for a rude awakening in the not so near future. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ enoch@zipcon.com $ via Finger $ {Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell}
participants (6)
-
Charles -
Declan McCullagh -
Mike Duvos -
nobody@REPLAY.COM -
Peter D. Junger -
Tim May