Crypto is hot in Washington. Don't think the battle's over; it's just beginning: * This afternoon when the Senate Intelligence committee met to consider a new CIA deputy director, Sen. Bob Kerrey said "there's a real urgency" to get an encryption bill passed. (Presumably, that would be his bill, the "Key Escrow Infrastructure" McCain-Kerrey/S.909.) Anyone still think that the Senate will do the right thing on crypto? Think again... * Last week Janet Reno talked at her weekly press conference about balancing law enforcement rights with privacy rights -- through mandatory domestic key escrow. * Yesterday Louis Freeh spoke at length before the House International Relations committee about the spread of nuclear weapons... and reminded committee members about the problems the FBI has with nonescrowed crypto... * Sen. Jon "Mandatory Domestic Key Escrow" Kyl said on Sunday that the Clinton administration's export controls on crypto were *not tight enough*... More info: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1385,00.html http://www.jya.com/declan8.htm -Declan **************** HEARING OF THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE NOMINATION OF LT.-GEN. JOHN A. GORDON TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY CHAIRMAN: SENATOR RICHARD SHELBY (R-AL) 106 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 2:00 P.M. EDT WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1997 SEN. KERREY: I hope no doubt that you've heard of and perhaps had the opportunity to read the recommendations made by Senators Helms and Moynihan, but I think they're excellent. It's an excellent examination of, first, the need in some instances to classify, as well as the need to examine that classification system. It's not really a question, General Gordon. I think it's imperative that, on the issue of encryption, that the president exert some authority and try to pull together the congressional leaders and say, "We need a secure public network." There's counter-intelligence concerns. There's national security issues here at stake, obviously, balanced against the concerns for civil liberties and the concern for commercial interests and the need to develop. But there's lots of action up here on the Hill, both in the House and the Senate, in half a dozen committees or eight or nine committees, or Lord knows how many altogether, more than I realized existed. And I think there's a real urgency to get something passed both for the private sector, so they can have some stability, but also on the public-sector side, so we can protect the nation's interests. MR. GORDON: Senator, I have not delved that deeply into the encryption issue. I certainly take your point on this point. But I do know that if the Senate does confirm me that that will be squarely on my plate. **************** ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO'S WEEKLY MEDIA AVAILABILITY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON, DC THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1997 Q No, wait - ATTY GEN. RENO: You've got to be quicker than that. Q (Inaudible) - yes, ma'am. Director Freeh and Director Constantine both have complained that U.S.-made encryption devices are giving the drug cartels an advantage whereby interdiction becomes impaired. Would you favor, as Mr. Freeh does, some kind of giving of the keys to these devices to the FBI and DEA? ATTY GEN. RENO: I don't think that Director Freeh favors giving keys to the FBI and to the DEA. Q No? ATTY GEN. RENO: What Director Freeh has talked about is what we have today - if someone is going to tap a phone, they don't just go in and tap the phone, if they're going to do it legally. What law enforcement does is it develops probable cause to believe that the telephone is being used to commit a crime and that to overhear would provide evidence of a crime. That is submitted to a judge, both in federal court and in many states courts where wiretapping is authorized. The judge reviews the sufficiency of the affidavits in support of the petition and enters an order directing the telephone company to provide that opportunity. What Director Freeh is hoping to achieve is the same thing with respect to encrypted products; so that the court would direct that the key be provided to the telecommunications system, or the other system, in order to decrypt the encoded message. What we're trying - what the administration is trying to do is to recognize that there are two important interests at stake here. One is the law enforcement interest, which is so vital with respect to terrorists, with respect to being able to decrypt the drug dealer's computer when I - I can get a search warrant now and seize his black book and I can read his black book or decipher what he's talking about. But if he can encrypt the information on his computer, that will be a significant obstacle to law enforcement. At the same time, the whole purpose of encryption with modern telecommunication is to provide for the privacy interest, of commercial interest of the average citizen. And so I think it's important that we work together to ensure the law enforcement capacity and ensure that the present capacity to get court-ordered authorities for surveillance are continued and are made real, while at the same time ensuring privacy. Q So you're saying that the phone company would have the responsibility? Do they have the capability of encrypting? ATTY GEN. RENO: The phone company doesn't have it. There would be a system whereby a key would be provided through third parties or otherwise. But this is something that we need to work together on to ensure that law enforcement interests are protected and that privacy interests are protected as well. **************** HEARING OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: ORGANIZED CRIME CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE BEN GILMAN (R-NY) LOUIS FREEH, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2172 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1997 10:00 A.M EDT REP. : Following up on what Mr. Hyde said on your need to fight international crime and terrorism, what do you need, as an agency director and for your agency, in terms of specifics to wage a fight that you can win? MR. FREEH: Yes, sir. As I mentioned in my statement, I think we need it on three levels. We need the permanent and minimal FBI presence overseas to develop the kinds of relationships that Dr. de Gennaro and I have had now for 18 years. We have asked for, and the Congress approved last year, in August of 1996, a plan to expand the FBI's Ligat (sp) program from approximately 23 to 43 Ligats. That would call for, by the end of 1999, 146 special agents in 42 different countries with 116 support employees. That's a total of 262 people. As I mentioned, the plan was submitted last year. It wasn't just an FBI plan. It was jointly submitted by the State Department and the attorney general. And we've asked for funding in the 1998 and 1999 budgets to reach that level. We've also asked for a continuation of the training. As I mentioned, we've been able to train thousands of police officers around the world. The benefit of that training is two-fold. First of all, we can give them what they need most of all, which are the basic tools to conduct their own investigations. Just as importantly, we develop through those relationships, as Dr. de Gennaro described it, the cop-to-cop contacts and relationships. So an FBI agent or a DEA agent can pick up the phone and speak to a police commander in Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan, if that's the place where we need to do our work. So the training is a very important part of the whole program. And again, and finally, we need the technological tools to do our work. We have to be able to communicate rapidly and securely. We have to deal with encryption. We have to deal with cyber-crime. And those are all part of a larger technological challenge which we're trying to meet. [...] REP. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Thank you, John. Director Freeh, appreciate your testimony. It's been quite riveting, actually. One of the briefing papers we have indicates that the American public, in a recent poll, whatever you want to take polls worth, say that 70 percent of the American people who were surveyed found it likely that the United States could be attacked by terrorist groups within the next decade using smuggled nuclear devices. If you were asked that, what category would you be in? MR. FREEH: I think it's a threat and a possibility that should occupy our highest priority. I think we've seen attacks certainly in Oklahoma, in New York City. We know that many of the state sponsors of terror, including Iran, are rapidly and very aggressively acquiring nuclear technology, both in terms of warheads and launching devices. We know that many of the state sponsors of terrorism, particularly Iran, sponsor and fund and control Hezbollah groups, including groups which have connections and operations in the United States. So the links, although I don't think I've seen them in a documented form, clearly suggest that if a terrorist is willing to use a truck bomb to blow up a building with thousands of people at risk, the accomplishment of the particular objective would not be changed or influenced by the opportunity to use a much more devastating (nuclear?) or biological or chemical agent. So I think we have to take the possibility extremely seriously and we have to take drastic steps to try to prevent and detect that. **************** [This thanks to John Young. --Declan] Remarks by Senator Jon Kyl at the First International Conservative Congress--September 28, 1997 [...] The Clinton Administration pursues a foreign policy without clear goals or the will to act decisively and is squandering the national security means left to it by a dozen years of Republican presidency. It emphasizes hope over reality and reliance on arms control agreements like the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) over a stronger defense. And political benefit over national security, as in its decisions to cave in to the concerns of some in industry in irresponsibly relaxing export controls on key items like encryption technology and supercomputers. **************** ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/