[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Brooks Statement on Crypto
The following statement by Rep. Jack Brooks (D-TX) was today
entered in the Congressional Record and transmitted to the
House Intelligence Committee. Rep. Brooks is Chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee and played a key role in the
passage of the Computer Security Act of 1987 when he served
as Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee.
David Sobel <[email protected]>
Legal Counsel
Electronic Privacy Information Center
=============================================================
ENCRYPTION POLICY ENDANGERS U.S.
COMPETITIVENESS IN GLOBAL MARKETPLACE
For some time now, a debate has been raging in the media
and in the halls of Congress over the Administration's
intention to require U.S. corporations to use and market the
Clipper Chip, an encryption device developed in secret by the
National Security Agency.
The Clipper Chip will provide industry and others with
the ability to encode telephone and computer communications.
The use of the Clipper Chip as the U.S. encryption standard
is a concept promoted by both the intelligence and law
enforcement communities because it is designed with a back
door to make it relatively easy for these agencies to listen
in on these communications.
The law enforcement and intelligence communities have a
legitimate concern that advances in technology will make
their jobs more difficult. But the issue here is whether
attempts to restrict the development, use and export of
encryption amounts to closing the barn door after the horse
has already escaped.
The notion that we can limit encryption is just plain
fanciful. Encryption technology is available worldwide --
and will become more available as time goes on.
First, generally available software with encryption
capabilities is sold within the U.S. at thousands of retail
outlets, by mail, even, over the phone. These programs may
be transferred abroad in minutes by anyone using a public
telephone line and a computer modem.
Second, it is estimated that over 200 products from
some 22 countries -- including Great Britain, France,
Germany, Russia, Japan, India, and South Africa -- use some
form of the encryption that the Government currently
prohibits U.S. companies from exporting. According to the
May 16, 1994 issue of _Fortune_, not only are U.S. companies
willing to purchase foreign encryption devices, American
producers of encrypted software are also moving production
overseas to escape the current export controls.
Third, encryption techniques and technology are well
understood throughout the world. Encryption is routinely
taught in computer science programs. Text books explain the
underlying encryption technology. International
organizations have published protocols for implementing high
level encryption. Actual implementations of encryption --
programs ready to use by even computer novices -- are on the
Internet.
The only result of continued U.S. export controls is
to threaten the continued preeminence of America's computer
software and hardware companies in world markets. These
restrictive policies jeopardize the health of American
companies, and the jobs and revenues they generate.
I support, therefore, the immediate revision of current
export controls over encryption devices to comport with the
reality of worldwide encryption availability.
I believe law enforcement and the intelligence community
would be better served by finding real, and targeted ways to
deal with international terrorists and criminals rather than
promoting scattershot policies, which restrict American
industries' ability to design, produce and market technology.
Now -- more than ever -- we cannot afford to harm our
economic competitiveness and justify it in the name of
national security.