[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Media Blitz
Having sent faxes to all the targets on my media list, I'm looking for the
following:
1> A Fax number for AT&T public relations so I can explain to them that they
can count my business out if they don't wise up.
2> A Fax number for Intergraph Corp
3> Internet addresses for same.
I sent the following text to several media contacts:
April 18, 1993
Sir or Madam,
I am sending this text to call your attention to what I and others
believe to be a grievous attack on privacy for the private sector and
the public at large.
On April 16, 1993 the White House Office of the Press Secretary
issued a statement regarding the administration's emerging policy on
encryption hardware and technology. In short this policy is a ruse.
With the increasing reliance on data links and E-Mail to
communicate, cryptography has evolved to protect the otherwise
vulnerable data traffic in this country. E-Mail and data transfers are
not as secure from tampering and compromise as is the postal
service. Messages sent through mail nets have no "envelopes" and
are unprotected from the prying eyes of system administrators on
any of the many nodes a message may pass through. Indeed those
using electronic mediums for mail services are entitled to some
reasonable assurance of privacy. As a result, cryptography and
encryption have become fruitful industries in this country.
The Clinton administration seems well on the way to destroying this
industry and stomping on the rights of citizens to secure their
communications from surveillance.
The "Clipper Chip Proposal," which is becoming known in the
academic community as the "Big Brother Proposal," bills itself as a
solution to the conflict between law enforcement and "crypto
industry." It is not. By enforcing the Clipper technology as a
standard, the Clinton administration has taken the first step in
regulating all encryption technology and selling short the American
people.
The Clipper technology, by the administration's own admission, is
compromised from the beginning. Cipher keys for Clipper
hardware are to be segmented and stored in depositories maintained
by two agencies, (which remain yet unnamed) and released with "the
proper authorization." No one educated in the nuances of
encryption would take such a system seriously. Willingness to
accept a system that comes already compromised is simply
unimaginable, at least while other systems are still around.
The administration insists that the algorithm for the Clipper
technology is secret, and will not be released to the academic sector
or the public at large. A vital part of the development process of
any new algorithm is its' ability to withstand the scrutiny of the
academic and private sectors. The current encryption standard
(DES) is a prime example. The algorithm for DES was made
available to the academic and private sectors at no loss of security to
those using DES based systems. Indeed the weaknesses of DES
were eventually revealed by the academic sector as a direct result of
this scrutiny. Part of the mark of a well designed system is in the
ability to remain secure despite disclosure of the algorithm. No
entity can be expected to trust such a system without being able to
review it for additional "backdoors" written into the system.
I cannot fathom that the administration has not realized these
points. They must know that such a system as the Clipper Chip is
unmarketable and doomed to failure in its' current state. As long as
other technology remains available, who would buy the Clipper
Chip? And how does the introduction of the Clipper Chip aid law
enforcement in protecting American citizens? Alone it does not.
Any organization, criminal or otherwise, would be quite content to
patronize other vendors not employing the Clipper Chip, many of
which currently exist.
I can only assume then that the administration's next step is to place
heavy regulations on other hardware and software products not
utilizing Clipper Chip technology, using the availability of Clipper
systems to justify their move.
The increasingly authoritarian methods the administration continues
to adopt deserve careful scrutiny. The precedents established by
this move, namely the regulation of the software industry, denial of
reasonable freedom from government intrusion in personal affairs,
and government created technology monopolies, are more than
alarming, but dangerous.
When confronted with the possibility of facing fines or criminal
penalties for which computer program we use, the phrase I hear
more and more often is, "I can't believe it's happening here."
Most Concerned,
[Signature]
Shaen Logan Bernhardt I
([email protected])
Are my letters annyoing anyone yet?
uni (Dark)