NYT Hits GAK, Boosts GAKS

[John Young <jya@pipeline.com>]

   The New York Times, July 6, 1998, p. A10.

   Editorial

   Privacy in the Digital Age

   As more and more Americans communicate and do business
   electronically, the fear is spreading that information they
   transmit can be seized by hackers or criminals and used for
   illegal or unsavory purposes. Fortunately, the technology
   to thwart such invasions already exists. It is called
   encryption, or the encoding of digital information to
   secure its privacy. But the Federal Bureau of Investigation
   is trying hard to prevent the growing use of encryption,
   both in the United States and abroad, because of fears that
   the protective technology itself will get into the wrong
   hands. That shortsighted stand will undermine efforts to
   protect commercial transactions and may actually hamper law
   enforcement rather than help it.

   The Clinton Administration's current policies toward
   encryption have been largely dictated by the F.B.I. and the
   Justice Department. These two agencies now block encryption
   makers from exporting their most advanced technology unless
   they agree to develop a method allowing law enforcement
   agencies to gain access to it. The method favored by the
   F.B.I. is known as the key escrow, in which the key to
   cracking a code is kept with a third party that could hand
   it over quickly if law enforcement agencies demanded it.

   But the key escrow method poses tremendous threats to
   privacy. There is a danger that access to keys for the code
   could be abused by law enforcement agencies and others.
   Worse, the United States would be required to share key
   escrow information with law enforcement agencies of other
   countries, and giving access to private communications to
   countries with poor human rights records could lead to
   crackdowns on dissidents using encryption for their own
   communications.

   According to industry officials, the export controls are
   already backfiring. More and more foreign companies are
   supplying encryption technologies without key escrow
   arrangements, making it virtually impossible for the F.B.I.
   to eavesdrop and stealing business from American firms. The
   growing foreign role diminishes the ability of the F.B.I.
   to demand new safeguards or ways to penetrate the
   communications of criminals who use encryption.

   President Clinton might normally be more sympathetic to
   concerns over maintaining privacy in the digital world. But
   since Attorney General Janet Reno has protected Mr. Clinton
   from an independent counsel on campaign finance, the White
   House is said to be loath to oppose either her or Louis
   Freeh, the F.B.I. Director, on this issue.

   On Capitol Hill, the debate over encryption has created
   some unusual political alliances. Many conservative
   Republicans have stood with leaders of the high-tech
   industry to oppose any kind of ban on encryption within the
   United States and to support a loosening of export controls
   on encryption technology. It has been odd to see Trent
   Lott, the Senate majority leader, and Dick Armey, the House
   majority leader, stand with civil libertarians against the
   demands of the F.B.I. But the F.B.I. is not without
   influence. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, more friendly to
   the agency, has prevented a bill encouraging greater use of
   encryption from coming to a vote in the House.

   The concerns of law enforcement agencies are legitimate.
   But smart criminals are already using encryption, some of
   which is readily available on the Internet. That was the
   message conveyed only a few weeks ago by such unlikely
   allies as Bill Gates of Microsoft and Jim Barksdale of
   Netscape, who are on opposite sides in the Justice
   Department's antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft but agree
   on this issue.

   The F.B.I. should give up its losing fight against
   encryption and work with industry to develop new means to
   catch criminals who use it. One approach under discussion

   would be to develop software technology that could be
   surreptitiously placed in a suspect's computer to capture
   keystrokes before they are encrypted. Any such operation
   would have to be carried out under strict court control as
   the electronic equivalent of a search warrant. But law
   enforcement agencies have to find a legal and ethical way
   to stay ahead of technology, rather than stand in the way
   of it. Trying to block advances in the digital age is
   futile.

   [End]