DoJ reins in Freeh. Excerpt from newsletter: >Coalition for Constitutional Liberties Weekly Update for 3/20/98 >Volume I, Number 5 >>From the Center for Technology Policy of the Free Congress Foundation >phone: 202-546-3000 >fax: 202-544-2819 >http://www.fcref.org/ctp/ > >For a Web version of this update go to: >http://www.fcref.org/ctp/wu032098.htm >***** >Senate hearing debates privacy and technology > >A Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution hearing held earlier >this week, "Privacy in the Digital Age: Encryption and Mandatory >Access," heard testimony concerning the use of encryption and the >demands by law enforcement to have immediate access to encrypted >communications. The legislation being considered was H.R. 695, the >Security and Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) Act. SAFE would prohibit >the existence of a key to unscramble data, but also make the use of >encryption to hide evidence from law enforcement a crime. > >Committee Chairman, Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO), framed the topic of >discussion for the hearing: "We have been told that law enforcement >needs mandatory access to every individual's electronic messages and >material. We have even heard that we need a new Fourth Amendment for the >digital age. At the same time, we have heard almost nothing about the >privacy interests of law-abiding citizens...Apparently, innocent >citizens are expected to trust the bureaucracy not to abuse them as the >IRS has done by shake down audits, or the FBI handing over hundreds of >sensitive files to political operatives in the White House." > >Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), sponsor of the SAFE Act in the House, was the >first to testify. But it was the testimony of Deputy Attorney General >Robert Litt that brought the most surprise. In a stunning development, >Litt announced that the Department of Justice was backing off its demand >for mandated key recovery, despite statements made by FBI Director Louis >Freeh to a Jan. 28th House Intelligence hearing to the contrary. "The >administration and the FBI have the same position, and that is not >mandating legislation, but pursuing a cooperative position with >industry," said Litt. > >But Litt's testimony also included references to a "voluntary solution" >which would encourage industry to incorporate key recovery into new >encryption products, giving the law enforcement a back-door into every >computer. This "voluntary solution" was the key provision used in the >Secure Public Networks Act (S. 909), introduced by Sen. Bob Kerrey >(D-NE) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). > >Some privacy advocates also expressed some reticence with SAFE. "Even >the SAFE bill, which is well-intentioned, fails to contain an assurance >of judicial review of any agency decision to prevent publication due to >alleged national security concerns, a key element required by the >Constitution," said Cindy Cohn, legal counsel to math professor Daniel >Bernstein, who is suing the State Department for the right to post an >encryption program on the Internet. "SAFE also does not clearly protect >scientists such as Professor Bernstein, but only protects those who seek >to distribute mass market software already available abroad," Cohn >continued. Berstein's encryption program falls under the export category >of "arms and military hardware", a position that has been challenged in >Bernstein's lawsuit as limiting free speech. Having won three legal >rounds, the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals is expected to rule on the >case soon. > >During questioning, Senator Ashcroft asked Professors Kathleen Sullivan >of Stanford and Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago whether >domestic encryption standards would be constitutional, to which Sullivan >replied that it would not, stating that "it inverts the world that our >framers so carefully put into place." Despite the constitutional >questions involved, it appears that the Clinton Administration, while >retreating from their frontal assault upon powerful encryption, seeks to >bargain a deal with the computer industry to maintain access to >encrypted programs. If that approach is successful, the Bernstein case >will be all the more important for citizens who wish to keep their >personal computer and financial records from prying government eyes. > >Read this WIRED NEWS story on the hearings: >http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/10997.html > >Watch and listen to a RealPlayer cybercast of the hearing: >http://www.computerprivacy.org/archive/03171998-1 >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 13:06:43 PDT