Keep Big Brother’s Hands
Off the Internet
by
John Ashcroft
(When this article was written in 1997, its
author was chairman of
the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs,
Foreign Commerce and Tourism. His fears of Big Brother have
eased substantially, now that he is Big Brother.)
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.
•
This article by then-Senator John Ashcroft appeared in the United
States Information Agency’s Electronic Journal,
Vol. 2, No. 4, October 1997
•
December, 2002
SEND
THIS ARTICLE TO A FRIEND
Copyright © 2004 by Jerome Doolittle
remnant@badattitudes.com
