ILF: What 4th Amendment? Here Comes the Clipper Encryption Plan

[Anonymous]

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 at access.digex.com. The opinions
 expressed are his own.