Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!die From: die@frog.UUCP (Dave Emery, Software) Newsgroups: net.ham-radio,net.video,net.crypt,net.mail,net.legal Subject: Re: Some comments on the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Message-ID: <1050@frog.UUCP> Date: Mon, 22-Sep-86 01:12:44 EDT Article-I.D.: frog.1050 Posted: Mon Sep 22 01:12:44 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Sep-86 07:53:51 EDT References: <1031@frog.UUCP> <15591@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1240@mhuxo.UUCP> <1035@frog.UUCP> <315@trout.UUCP> Reply-To: die@frog.UUCP (David I. Emery) Organization: Superfrog Heaven [ CRDS, Framingham MA ] Lines: 56 Keywords: DES RSA LPC VLSI very cheap and simple laws too late Summary: Not yet, but maybe soon Xref: mnetor net.ham-radio:2267 net.video:2225 net.crypt:594 net.mail:1206 net.legal:3641 In article <315@trout.UUCP> rupp@trout.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: >I think I have missed something in this discussion of communications privacy. >Has there been a proposal in Congress to ban transmission encryption, or is >that eventuality merely a supposition on the part of some net.crypt posters? > There hasn't yet been such a bill, but as a number of posters have pointed out, apparently one of the major forces behind the movement to pass the Electronic Communications Privacy Act is a group of law enforcement and intelligence agencies who are reputed to fear that widespread use of secure and effective encryption will deny them important sources of intelligence. (eg terrorists, organised crime, drug dealers, hackers, and other such bad guys will start using secure crypto communications if they are made widely available) It is assumed that the agencies are backing the bill because it provides legal protection for unencrypted common carrier communications, and for any other communication encrypted in any manner (or even transmitted using complex or unusual modulation). It is presumed that they feel that the existance of a strong law with stiff penalties and the possibility of civil as well as criminal action (with lower standards of proof and no prosecutorial discression) will be seen by the communications service buying public as an adaquate answer to the security problem, and the movement toward use of really effective encryption will slow down or stop as a result. I personally suspect that the large common carriers (who have also backed the bill) would very much not like to spend billions of dollars securing their transmissions (particularly the wide open microwave radio and satellite links that represent the lowest-cost-to-provide long distance interconnections). If the bill passes the carriers will have a legal defense against lawsuits by subscribers whose communications have been intercepted from these links, if there isn't such a law someone might someday successfully sue a carrier for a large amount of money for not taking adaquate precautions to ensure his privacy. And a court ruling that the mostly open transmissions currently used are not adaquately secure could be devastating to carriers with limited investments in such more secure technologies as coaxial cable and optical fibers. Thus the intelligence agencies are hoping that shielded from liability for providing privacy the carriers will not install encryption and provide secure service as rapidly since the major reasons for them to do so (fear of lawsuits and public pressure) will have been at least partially neutralized. And they hope that the public, provided with a new and powerful defense against those who intercept its communications (the civil penalties) will not press as hard for technology that provides real security (even from the intelligence agencies themselves). I speculate that this attempt to slow the spread of encryption by providing legal tools to wronged parties and protection to carriers from suits will not be enough to prevent its use from becoming widespread, and that the intelligence agencies will have to pressure for restrictions on the use of encryption. And perhaps there are fools enough in congress for such a law to pass too.. -- David I. Emery Charles River Data Systems 983 Concord St., Framingham, MA 01701 (617) 626-1102 uucp: decvax!frog!die