[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Stewart Baker's analysis of administration crypto-proposal
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 19:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Stewart Baker's analysis of administration crypto-proposal
[Some folks have asked me why I'm sending so much encryption-related
information recently. The answer is simple: this week will be a crucial
one in deciding how much privacy Americans will enjoy in the digital age.
This proposal is //at least// as important and newsworthy as the original
Clipper Chip was, and ranks up there with the Communications Decency Act.
Thanks to Stewart Baker for forwarding. --Declan]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 97 18:19:24 EST
From: Stewart Baker <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Declan, here is a quick analysis of the latest leaked
Administration legislative draft on encryption. Whether this language ever
sees the light of day in this form, however, is open to doubt. With that
disclaimer, here's what the bill seems likely to do.
Stewart Baker
THE LANGUAGE
The draft borrows heavily from the structure and content of
the Kerrey/McCain legislation--it even retains the title, the "Secure
Public Networks Act". In fact, the provisions in Titles IV through X
of McCain/Kerrey regarding the registration of certificate authorities
and key recovery agents, liability, criminal penalties, defenses,
international negotiations, authority of the Secretary of Commerce to
investigate compliance with the Act, and authority for the Attorney
General to bring actions to enjoin violations of the Act are largely
unchanged in this draft. The significant changes are:
-- gone is the section (102) that would prohibit mandatory
third party escrow of keys. In its place is a new section (105) that
would prohibit, after January 1, 1999, the provision of encryption
services in the U.S., or the manufacture for sale or distribution in
the U.S. of encryption products/systems, that do not have a plaintext
recovery feature that may be turned on at the option of the user.
-- gone is the exclusive emphasis on key recovery as the
technology for assuring plaintext recovery. Instead, this legislation
would require products and systems that permit immediate decryption
without the knowledge or cooperation of the user. The Attorney
General is to issue regulations describing these functional criteria,
but there is no provision requiring public notice and comment on such
regulations.
-- gone is the language requiring key recovery agents to
disclose recovery information when presented with a subpoena. In its
place is language that indicates a court order or court authorized
warrant is required before a key recovery agent may disclose recovery
information.
-- added is export license exception treatment for products
that are access or recovery enabled, regardless of algorithm, key
length, or even whether the access feature is activated. This would
be broader than McCain/Kerrey which would extend license exception
treatment to products with over 56-bit key lengths only if the product
includes an access feature and the access feature is turned on at the
time of export.
-- retained is the provision to decontrol 56-bit encryption
after one time review. However, the bill adds an Encryption Export
Advisory Board, composed of industry and government representatives,
to, among other things, recommend to the President whether the key
length of encryption exports to be decontrolled should be raised
beyond 56 bits. The President retains the final decision making
authority, however.
-- gone is the McCain/Kerrey provision that would authorize the
Secretary of Commerce to prohibit any exports that could be contrary
to U.S. security interests.
-- added is a provision to permit license exceptions for voice
products with encryption if the Secretary of Commerce determines that
requiring an access feature would be a competitive disadvantage and
permitting the export would be compatible with U.S. foreign and
national security policies.
-- retained are the provisions that require the use of
accessible encryption products and services on any system used or
funded by the Government, but this draft sets a January 1, 1999 date
of compliance.
-- contrary to earlier indications, there is no requirement for
certificate authorities registered under the Act to ensure recovery
information is escrowed with a recovery agent registered under the
Act.
ANALYSIS
Even though expected, the big news with this draft is the
introduction of domestic control of encryption products and services
available in the U.S. For many, the idea of such controls is simply
an unacceptable infringement on privacy. But even for those who could
be persuaded of the need for such controls, the implementation date
provided (January 1, 1999) is unworkable. Industry must have the time
to research and develop access technology appropriate to their
products, particularly in the telecommunications industry where the
demand for security is increasing, but there is little or no market
for key recovery and its associated infrastructure. Likewise,
manufacturers cannot afford to write off the investments they have
made in existing security products or services by being compelled to
implement new designs before technology turnover would normally be
expected to occur.
A related concern would be to ensure new products with
access features may interoperate with products or services that are
already in use without such features. It is unreasonable to expect
that users could afford to replace their existing systems with new
products that include access features. The language of this draft
would seem to permit such interoperability since the access feature is
required only to be an option that may be turned on by the user, or
not. But even if the legislation is understood as permitting such
interoperability, the cost to manufacturers and consumers of meeting
this new requirement could be substantial.