NIST Explains Clipper "Review" (fwd)

[Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>]

In case you haven't heard:
 
 
To: Cypherpunks <toad.com!cypherpunks>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 16:51:12 EST    
Subject: NIST Explains Clipper "Revi 
 
  NIST Explains Clipper "Review"
 
     The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has 
clarified the role of five experts selected by the agency to 
evaluate the government's Clipper Chip proposal and the underlying 
SKIPJACK cryptographic algorithm.  In a recent letter to the CPSR 
Washington Office, NIST asserts that the panel was not established 
to provide "advice or recommendations" to the government.  Rather, 
according to NIST, the reason for convening the group was "to 
provide the opportunity for independent experts to satisfy 
themselves as to the strength and effectiveness of the algorithm 
in order to encourage widespread acceptance of it in the 
marketplace."  NIST concludes that the panel's evaluation 
therefore falls outside the scope of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, which opens the work of advisory panels to public 
scrutiny.
 
     In response to CPSR's request for documents relevant to the 
panel's review, the agency reveals that
 
     NIST has no records which were made available to or prepared
     for the five experts for the purpose of enabling them to
     evaluate the Clipper Chip proposal.  Any such records would
     be in the possession of the National Security Agency, where
     all activities related to the work of the experts were
     conducted.
 
This disclosure provides further confirmation that NSA, and not 
NIST, is the driving force behind the Clipper proposal, despite 
NIST's public role as the "proposing" agency.
 
     The only NIST document released to CPSR is a copy of the 
invitation sent to the five experts who participated in the 
evaluation.  That letter describes the "key escrow" system and 
states that the escrowed keys will be made available "only to 
authorized government officials under proper legal authorizations, 
usually a court order."  This language -- "usually a court order" 
--  suggests that there will be instances in which the escrow keys 
will be provided to government agents without presentation of a 
judicial warrant.  The government has never clearly defined what 
will constitute "legal authorization" under the Clipper system.
 
David L. Sobel
CPSR Legal Counsel
<dsobel@washofc.cpsr.org>