CLIP: Sample/Draft letter to the editor

[zane@genesis.mcs.com (Sameer)]

	I wrote up a letter to the editor on the issue, which I will send
to the local newspapers and the major newspapers. I'd like comments, and
criticisms so that I may make the letter more effective.
	I also plan on writing an article in my newsletter _The Free
Journal_ on this big brother plan. (I plan on including excerpts from
_From Crossbows to Cryptography_ in this "Crypto" issue as well.)

Editor:

	The Clinton administration on Friday unveiled their plan for
establishing a standard data encryption system for voice communications.
This plan is abhorrent and reeks of Big Brother.
	President Clinton says that he wants to bring the United States
into the twenty-first century. This proposal is bringing us to 1984.
First I will mention technical reasons why the system is inadequate.
	The encryption algorithim is classified. Only a select group of
people will be allowed to examine the algorithim for flaws. The members
of the cryptographic community emphasize that the only way to make sure
that a cryptographic system is secure is to have as many people as
possible analyze and try to break it for as long as possible. A system
which has been examined by a small segment of the population will not be
trusted to be secure.
	The key used in this algorithim is very small-- it is easily
attacked by brute-force. The encryption key is only eighty bits long.
Such a small key lends itself to easy decryption by an unauthorized
party. It would lend a false sense of security to laypersons in the
field who do not realize that a key of such simplicity could be cracked
easily by any talented criminal.
	Apart from the technical flaws in the system, there are many
political problems with the recent big brother proposal. First, there is
the assumption that the government has a right to spy on its own
citizens. The proposal for this wiretap chip includes the registration
of keys with two escrow agencies.  This is purported to allow law
enforcement to keep track of "terrorists" and "drug-dealers." The first
flaw in this key-escrow system is that no self-respecting criminal will
use a cryptography system which can be easily tapped by law enforcement
officials-- they will use strong cryptography. Thus the only people who
may end up using the wiretap encryption system will be law-abiding
laypeople who don't fully understand cryptography. (Law-abiding citizens
who do understand cryptography will use strong cryptography to preserve
their privacy from a talented criminal.) 
	The proposal says that in order to obtain the key of a wiretap
chip user a law enforcement agency must first establish that they have a
valid interest in the key. Translated out of legalese, that means that
all a government agency will have to do to get access to all of the
private communications between, for example, a lawyer and her client
will be to fill out the necessary forms. Registering cryptographic keys
with the government is similar to giving the IRS the keys to your house
and filing cabinet.
	The chip is being manufactured exclusively by one company. The
release stated that the Attorney shall request (i.e. coerce)
telecommunication product manufacturers to use this product.  This
aspect of the system is a government-mandated monopoly. Such monopolies
result in high prices and the elimination of market forces which drive
the improvement of technology. (One needs only look at the state of the
Soviet Union to see how the lack of market forces affects consumer
technology.)
	What is feared the most from the proposal is that if the wiretap
chip becomes the standard, strong cryptography will be declared illegal.
If such is the case, then only criminals will have access to strong
cryptography. As I have stated above-- the wiretap chip will not be used
by criminals because of the obvious flaws in the crypto-system--
criminals will use strong crypto, while law-abiding citizens will have
to use a system which can be easily defeated by any criminal.
	Strong cryptography already exists for data communications, for
-free-. Strong cryptography for voice communications for -free- is only
a few months away for people who own a personal computer. There is no
way that making strong cryptography illegal will stop it-- it will only
turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals.


			Sincerely,

			Sameer Parekh





--
| Sameer Parekh-zane@genesis.MCS.COM-PFA related mail to pfa@genesis.MCS.COM |
| Apprentice Philosopher, Writer, Physicist, Healer, Programmer, Lover, more |
| "Be God" - Me __ "Specialization is for Insects" - Robert A. Heinlein ____/
 \_____________/  \____________________________________________________/