Senator John Ashcroft
KEEP BIG BROTHER'S HANDS OFF THE INTERNET
Wed Nov 27 20:31:09 2002
208.152.73.152

KEEP BIG BROTHER'S HANDS OFF THE INTERNET
By Senator John Ashcroft
Republican, Missouri
Chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign
Commerce and Tourism
[Senator Ashcroft takes issue with administration views on the Internet
and the use of encryption technology.]

The Internet provides a great opportunity to our country, in part by
representing the most inviting form of communication ever developed. It
draws people together from all corners of the globe to share and communicate
on an unprecedented level, and brings all branches of government closer to
the public that they serve.

The Internet allows small businesses to reach out across the globe and
conquer the distances between them and potential customers. Individuals can
view merchandise and make purchases without leaving home. The Internet also
holds great promise for education. Students -- rural, suburban, and urban --
are increasingly able to access a wealth of information with their
fingertips that was previously beyond their reach.
In order to guarantee that the United States meets the challenge of this new
means of commerce, communication, and education, government must be careful
not to interfere. We should not harness the Internet with a confusing array
of intrusive regulations and controls. Yet, the Clinton administration is
trying to do just that.

The Clinton administration would like the Federal government to have the
capability to read any international or domestic computer communications.
The FBI wants access to decode, digest, and discuss financial transactions,
personal e-mail, and proprietary information sent abroad -- all in the name
of national security. To accomplish this, President Clinton would like
government agencies to have the keys for decoding all exported U.S. software
and Internet communications.
This proposed policy raises obvious concerns about Americans' privacy, in
addition to tampering with the competitive advantage that our U.S. software
companies currently enjoy in the field of encryption technology. Not only
would Big Brother be looming over the shoulders of international
cyber-surfers, but the administration threatens to render our
state-of-the-art computer software engineers obsolete and unemployed.
There is a concern that the Internet could be used to commit crimes and that
advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide
the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps.
Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at
will and in real time to our communications across the Web?
The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection
from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years
of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental right. The
state's interest in effective crime-fighting should never vitiate the
citizens' Bill of Rights.

The president has proposed that American software companies supply the
government with decryption keys to high level encryption programs. Yet,
European software producers are free to produce computer encryption codes of
all levels of security without providing keys to any government authority.
Purchasers of encryption software value security above all else. These
buyers will ultimately choose airtight encryption programs that will not be
American-made programs to which the U.S. government maintains keys.

In spite of this truism, the president is attempting to foist his rigid
policy on the exceptionally fluid and fast-paced computer industry.

Furthermore, recent developments in decryption technology bring into
question the dynamic of government meddling in this industry. Three months
ago, the 56-bit algorithm government standard encryption code that protects
most U.S. electronic financial transactions from ATM cards to wire transfers
was broken by a low-powered 90 MHZ Pentium processor.
In 1977, when this code was first approved by the U.S. government as a
standard, it was deemed unbreakable. And for good reason. There are 72
quadrillion (72,000 trillion) different combinations in a 56-bit code.

However, with today's technology these 72 quadrillion combinations can each
be tried in a matter of time.
Two days after this encryption code was broken, a majority of the U.S.

Senate Commerce Committee voted, in accordance with administration policy,
to force American software companies to perpetuate this already compromised
56-bit encryption system. In spite of the fact that 128-bit encryption
software from European firms is available on Web sites accessible to every
Internet user. Interestingly, European firms can import this super-secure
encryption technology (originally developed by Americans) to the United
States, but U.S. companies are forbidden by law from exporting these same
programs to other countries.
I believe that moving forward with the president's policy or the Commerce
Committee's bill would be an act of folly, creating a cadre of government
"peeping toms" and causing severe damage to our vibrant software industries.

Government would be caught in a perpetual game of catch-up with whiz-kid
code-breakers and industry advances. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has
signaled his objection to both proposals.
The leader and I would like to work to bring solid encryption legislation to
the Senate floor. Any proposal should give U.S. encryption software
manufacturers the freedom to compete on equal footing in the international
marketplace, by providing the industry with a quasi-governmental board that
would decide encryption bit strength based on the level of international
technological development.
U.S. companies are on the front line of on-line technologies -- value-added
industries of the future. Consider this: Every eighteen months, the
processing capability of a computer doubles. The speed with which today's
fastest computers calculate will be slug-like before the next millennium or
the next presidential election comes along. The best policy for encryption
technology is one that can rapidly react to breakthroughs in decoding
capability and roll back encryption limits as needed.
The administration's interest in all e-mail is a wholly unhealthy precedent,
especially given this administration's track record on FBI files and IRS
snooping. Every medium by which people communicate can be subject to
exploitation by those with illegal intentions. Nevertheless, this is no
reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our
ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our international
communications.

Additionally, the full potential of the Internet will never be realized
without a system that fairly protects the interests of those who use the
Internet for their businesses, own copyrighted material, deliver that
material via the Internet, or individual users. The implications here are
far-reaching, with impacts that touch individual users, companies,
libraries, universities, teachers, and students.
In December 1996, two treaties were adopted by the diplomatic conference of
the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to update international
copyright law. These treaties would extend international copyright law into
the digital environment, including the Internet. However, these treaties do
not provide a comprehensive response to the many copyright issues raised by
the flourishing of the Internet and the promise of digital technology. We
must work to keep the scales of copyright law balanced, providing important
protections to creators of content, while ensuring their widespread
distribution. In an attempt to meet these goals, I introduced the Digital
Copyright Clarification and Technology Education Act of 1997.
Equally important, we must begin a process that is structured to balance the
rights of copyright owners with the needs and technological limitations of
those who enable the distribution of the electronic information, and with
the rights and needs of individual end users. The current treaties and
statements are not sufficient, and include some language that could create
legal uncertainty. This vague language could lead to laws that ignore
technical realities. The language must be clarified through the enactment of
legislation in conjunction with the Senate's ratification of the treaties.
Another issue that could prevent the Internet from reaching its potential is
taxation. If we tax the Internet prematurely or allow discriminatory taxing,
we may stifle a burgeoning technological development that holds much
commercial, social, and educational promise for all Americans. Taxation
should be considered only after we have fully examined and understood the
impact that unequivocal taxation would have on this new means of commerce.

The Internet Tax Freedom Act would allow for full consideration of the
opportunities and possible abuses by placing a moratorium on further
taxation of online commerce and technologically discriminatory taxes. It is
important to note that S. 442 will allow states and local jurisdictions to
continue to collect any tax already levied on electronic commerce.

On-line communications technology is akin to the Wild West of the 19th
century. To best settle this new frontier, we should unleash American
know-how and ingenuity. The government's police-state policy on encryption
is creating hindrances and hurdles that will eventually injure our ability
to compete internationally. Government's role should be to break down
barriers, to allow everyone to excel to their highest and best.
__________
Senator Ashcroft is a member of the Senate Commerce, Judiciary, and Foreign
Relations Committees. His Web homepage is: http://www.senate.gov/~ashcroft/
and his e-mail address is: john_ashcroft@ashcroft.senate.gov

Global Issues
USIA Electronic Journal, Vol. 2, No. 4, October 1997

On November 7, 2000, 105.4 million American citizens voted for President of
the United States.
George W. Bush lost by 539,897 votes.

FORWARDED FROM: rcplank@ameritech.net