FBI Files on Clipper Releas
FOR RELEASE: August 16, 1995, 2:00 p.m. EST CONTACT: David Sobel (202) 544-9240 FBI FILES: CLIPPER MUST BE MANDATORY WASHINGTON, DC - Newly-released government documents show that key federal agencies concluded more than two years ago that the "Clipper Chip" encryption initiative will only succeed if alternative security techniques are outlawed. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) obtained the documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the Freedom of Information Act. EPIC, a non-profit research group, received hundreds of pages of material from FBI files concerning Clipper and cryptography. The conclusions contained in the documents appear to conflict with frequent Administration claims that use of Clipper technology will remain "voluntary." Critics of the government's initiative, including EPIC, have long maintained that the Clipper "key-escrow encryption" technique would only serve its stated purpose if made mandatory. According to the FBI documents, that view is shared by the Bureau, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). In a "briefing document" titled "Encryption: The Threat, Applications and Potential Solutions," and sent to the National Security Council in February 1993, the FBI, NSA and DOJ concluded that: Technical solutions, such as they are, will only work if they are incorporated into *all* encryption products. To ensure that this occurs, legislation mandating the use of Government-approved encryption products or adherence to Government encryption criteria is required. Likewise, an undated FBI report titled "Impact of Emerging Telecommunications Technologies on Law Enforcement" observes that "[a]lthough the export of encryption products by the United States is controlled, domestic use is not regulated." The report concludes that "a national policy embodied in legislation is needed." Such a policy, according to the FBI, must ensure "real- time decryption by law enforcement" and "prohibit[] cryptography that cannot meet the Government standard." The FBI conclusions stand in stark contrast to public assurances that the government does not intend to prohibit the use of non-escrowed encryption. Testifying before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on May 3, 1994, Assistant Attorney General Jo Ann Harris asserted that: As the Administration has made clear on a number of occasions, the key-escrow encryption initiative is a voluntary one; we have absolutely no intention of mandating private use of a particular kind of cryptography, nor of criminalizing the private use of certain kinds of cryptography. According to EPIC Legal Counsel David Sobel, the newly- disclosed information "demonstrates that the architects of the Clipper program -- NSA and the FBI -- have always recognized that key-escrow must eventually be mandated. As privacy advocates and industry have always said, Clipper does nothing for law enforcement unless the alternatives are outlawed." Scanned images of several key documents are available via the World Wide Web at the EPIC Home Page: http://www.epic.org/crypto/ban/fbi_dox/ -30- _________________________________________________________________________ Subject: FBI Files on Clipper Released _________________________________________________________________________ David Banisar (Banisar@epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * HTTP://epic.org Washington, DC 20003 * ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org
Dave Banisar quotes FBI documents obtained via the FOIA:
Technical solutions, such as they are, will only work if they are incorporated into *all* encryption products. To ensure that this occurs, legislation mandating the use of Government-approved encryption products or adherence to Government encryption criteria is required.
...meanwhile...
Testifying before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on May 3, 1994, Assistant Attorney General Jo Ann Harris asserted that:
As the Administration has made clear on a number of occasions, the key-escrow encryption initiative is a voluntary one; we have absolutely no intention of mandating private use of a particular kind of cryptography, nor of criminalizing the private use of certain kinds of cryptography.
By exactly what mechanism are appointed (hired ?) officials such as AAG Harris supposedly accountable to the public ? Can they be brought up on perjury charges ? Just what real legal recourse do we have against lying scum in the bureaucracy ? Are we stuck unless we can get some Congresscritter to cry foul on the floor of the House or Senate ? -Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com> "you said too much; and what you said, it was a lie" -EMF
On Wed, 16 Aug 1995, Futplex wrote:
Dave Banisar quotes FBI documents obtained via the FOIA:
Technical solutions, such as they are, will only work if they are incorporated into *all* encryption products. To ensure that this occurs, legislation mandating the use of Government-approved encryption products or adherence to Government encryption criteria is required.
...meanwhile...
Testifying before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on May 3, 1994, Assistant Attorney General Jo Ann Harris asserted that:
As the Administration has made clear on a number of occasions, the key-escrow encryption initiative is a voluntary one; we have absolutely no intention of mandating private use of a particular kind of cryptography, nor of criminalizing the private use of certain kinds of cryptography. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ By exactly what mechanism are appointed (hired ?) officials such as AAG Harris supposedly accountable to the public ? Can they be brought up on perjury charges ? Just what real legal recourse do we have against lying scum in the bureaucracy ? Are we stuck unless we can get some Congresscritter to cry foul on the floor of the House or Senate ?
You sure are anxious to prosecute government officials. What is untrue about her statement. Maybe she meant it's OK to use ROT-13 but nothing else ... And you guys complained about the Jake Baker prosecution! BTW, Harris is no longer AAG-Criminal Division. She went back to teaching, keeping a commitment she made to her family. And yes, she was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com> "you said too much; and what you said, it was a lie" -EMF
EBD
A FBI document reads: # To ensure that this occurs, legislation mandating the # use of Government-approved encryption products or # adherence to Government encryption criteria is required. Ex-AAG Jo Ann Harris told a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee in 1994: $ we have absolutely no intention of mandating private use of a particular $ kind of cryptography, I ranted: % Just what real legal recourse do we have against lying scum in the % bureaucracy ? Brian Davis writes:
You sure are anxious to prosecute government officials.
You're damn right I'm anxious to prosecute government officials who appear to have willfully lied about public policy in testimony before Congress ! Look, plenty of people here are honest-to-[insert your higher power of choice here] anarchists. I happen to be at most an anarchogroupie ;) and I'm reasonably comfortable with the U.S. version of representative democracy. [Note to the list: I'm not looking to spark any sort of debate about political philosophy, on or off the list. I'm not interested in arguing semantics, so don't bother trying.] For representative democracy to be even vaguely democratic at all, the representatives need to level with their constituents as much as possible. I certainly intend to hold public officials speaking in an official capacity about official business to a high standard of conduct.
What is untrue about her statement. Maybe she meant it's OK to use ROT-13 but nothing else ...
How could that be compatible with "no intention of mandating...a particular kind of cryptography" ?
And you guys complained about the Jake Baker prosecution!
Non-sequitur. How is the Baker case relevant to this ? -Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com> "Say goodbye to the clowns in Congress" -Elton John/Bernie Taupin
On Wed, 23 Aug 1995, Futplex wrote:
A FBI document reads: # To ensure that this occurs, legislation mandating the # use of Government-approved encryption products or # adherence to Government encryption criteria is required.
Ex-AAG Jo Ann Harris told a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee in 1994: $ we have absolutely no intention of mandating private use of a particular $ kind of cryptography,
I ranted: % Just what real legal recourse do we have against lying scum in the % bureaucracy ?
Brian Davis writes:
You sure are anxious to prosecute government officials.
You're damn right I'm anxious to prosecute government officials who appear to have willfully lied about public policy in testimony before Congress !
You must realize that there can be a difference between what agencies say is necessary and what policy ultimately becomes on that issue. It is because of that distinction that campaigns, such as the ongoing campaign to allow exportation of strong encryption software, are important. The FBI may say they want X, but the policymakers may take the FBI's arguments (always with a grain, or a bucket, of salt), consider other agencies views, public opinion, the persuasiveness of everyone's reasoning, and *then* adopt a policy that satisfies no one completely.
For representative democracy to be even vaguely democratic at all, the representatives need to level with their constituents as much as possible. I certainly intend to hold public officials speaking in an official capacity about official business to a high standard of conduct.
As you, and we all, should. That doesn't mean prosecution necessarily. It may mean private protest (letter to Clinton, Reno, et al.), public protest, voting the bastards out, etc.
What is untrue about her statement. Maybe she meant it's OK to use ROT-13 but nothing else ... How could that be compatible with "no intention of mandating...a particular kind of cryptography" ?
And you guys complained about the Jake Baker prosecution!
Non-sequitur. How is the Baker case relevant to this ?
I disagree that it is a non sequitur. Baker indicted for speech which, to some, constituted a threat. You seek to prosecute former AAG Harris for speech which, to some, was a lie.
-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com> > "Say goodbye to the clowns in Congress" -Elton John/Bernie Taupin
Sorry I didn't respond sooner -- email got backed up and I'm not reading chronologically (for some unknown reason).
participants (3)
-
Brian Davis -
Dave Banisar -
futplex＠pseudonym.com