roundtable: (VTW) BillWatch #60 Forum
roundtable: (VTW) BillWatch #60
(VTW) BillWatch #60
Voters Telecommunications Watch (shabbir@vtw.org)
Tue, 1 Oct 1996 02:02:44 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 02:02:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Voters Telecommunications Watch <shabbir@vtw.org>
Message-Id: <199610010602.CAA24712@panix3.panix.com>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: (VTW) BillWatch #60
===========================================================================
VTW BillWatch #60
VTW BillWatch: A newsletter tracking US Federal legislation
affecting civil liberties. BillWatch is published about every
week as long as Congress is in session. (Congress is in session)
BillWatch is produced and published by the
Voters Telecommunications Watch (vtw@vtw.org)
Issue #60, Date: Tue Oct 1 01:59:19 EDT 1996
Do not remove this banner. See distribution instructions at the end.
___________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction from the Editor <Shabbir J. Safdar>
Elements of the new crypto proposal <Shabbir J. Safdar>
Subscription Information and donation policy (unchanged 2/18/96)
___________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION FROM THE EDITOR
A much-needed vacation has taken BillWatch out of commission for a few weeks.
We hope you don't mind. The deadline pressures of producing a weekly
newsletter, combined with the stress that comes from the end of a
Congressional session, a number of important projects coming to fruition, and
a quick trip to Texas for EFF-Austin and EF-Houston's conferences have all
made it hard to put out another issue.
Of course, during these weeks we haven't been inactive. On the phone twice
a day to folks in D.C. while keeping one ear on the OECD crypto meeting in
Paris, we've been very busy.
On top of all of this, we're planning a free seminar for November 3rd to
educate folks on the New York State internet censorship bill. We'll have
VTW's legislative counsel, Steve Barber, available to explain the law to
you and what it means. The location isn't quite nailed down yet,
but if you are out of town anyway, consider tuning into the RealAudio
feed, which will be provided by the nice folks from the
Netly News http://www.pathfinder.com/Netly/ over at Pathfinder.
Keep an eye on our free speech page at http://www.vtw.org/speech/ for
the exact date and location!
Shabbir J. Safdar (shabbir@vtw.org)
This issue is on the Web at URL:http://www.vtw.org/billwatch/issue.60.html
___________________________________________________________________________
ELEMENTS OF THE NEW CRYPTO PROPOSAL
Strap yourself in, friends. The White House is at it again.
On Thursday October 3, the White House will unveil it's long-dreaded
encryption proposal. The cause of some significant consternation among
Administration staffers, the proposal has been so long in coming that
Justice officials attending hearings last week on H.R. 3011 were visibly
annoyed at being left to twist in the wind.
Leaks abound right before a big announcement like this, but this time
everyone with a copy of the proposal has kept mum these last few days.
However the press has caught bits and pieces of it which we've collected
for you here. If you're an absolute crypto-media-hound, this may not be
news to you.
MOVE OF EXPORT APPROVALS FROM STATE TO COMMERCE, FBI VETO POWER
For years, companies have attempted to get their encryption products
through an easier, more lenient export process in the Department of
Commerce, instead of State. Approval in Commerce goes quickly, and
the hurdles are less formidable. Clearly, this should be a good thing.
However the deal that's been floating around for several weeks now is
that this move will not be this easy. The Department of Justice,
(or as Brock Meeks translates, the FBI) wants a seat at the table. In
effect, they want veto power over export applications. The assumption
is that they feel they can influence the domestic encryption market to
integrate Clipper-style key escrow technology by simply refusing the
export of any strong encryption products that might have previously been
approved in State.
This is bad news for companies that have no customer base demanding
government-friendly key escrow products.
KEY LENGTH RAISED TO 56 OR 64 BITS PROVIDED IT USES KEY ESCROW
This aspect of the proposal looks like old news, and to a certain extent,
it is. The Clipper II proposal suggested that the industry build hooks
into their products so that third parties could hold your keys for you.
Of course, that third party cannot be yourself, or anyone you would think
of when you think of entities you trust.
Thursday's proposal is likely to look a lot like Clipper II, and it will
likely cite the new IBM offering, SuperCrypto, as an example of products
that employ key escrow to allow export of products that use higher length
keys. What isn't certain is the extent to which key lengths will be raised.
There have been several conflicting rumors, some of them claiming 56 bits,
others claiming 64 bits.
More important than the question of key length will be the determination of
which companies are allowed to hold their own keys. This author predicts
that the only entities that will be allowed to hold keys will be: a gov't
agency (such as NIST), the maker of the encryption product itself, or
large companies that have the significant resources to run a key recovery
center. In all cases, the key recovery centers will still need to be
seperate entities that will dole out keys to law enforcement without the
knowledge of the key's owner.
In other words, you as an individual or small business are still out of luck.
PROBABLY NOT IN PLAN: KEY LENGTH RAISED TO 56 BITS WITHOUT KEY ESCROW
It has long been rumored that the avalanche of proof provided by the industry
experts would eventually force the Administration to raise the key length
for which unescrowed encryption products could be exported. Currently,
this limit is 40 bits, but several rumors floated and died within the
last few weeks suggesting that the Administration would be raising the
key length. It now looks like those were indeed just rumors.
SUMMARY
Most of these measures, if not all of them, can be implemented
administratively removing the need for Congress to get involved. However
Congress has already staked out its turf on this issue, and isn't likely
to cede that any time soon. Keep an eye out for the reactions from sponsors
of S.1726 (Pro-CODE) and HR 3011 on the feasibility White House proposal.
___________________________________________________________________________
SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION AND DONATION POLICY
We do not accept unsolicited donations at this time; money creates a
dependence upon money. If you want to help, for heaven's sakes, register
to vote at http://netvote96.mci.com/register.html.
Please do not offer us money.
You can receive BillWatch via email, gopher or WWW:
To subscribe via email, send mail to majordomo@vtw.org with
"subscribe vtw-announce" in the body of the message. To
unsubscribe from BillWatch send mail to majordomo@vtw.org with
"unsubscribe vtw-announce" in the body of the message. Send mail to
files@vtw.org to learn how to receive back issues of BillWatch.
BillWatch can be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.vtw.org/billwatch/
and in Gopherspace at: gopher -p1/vtw/billwatch/ gopher.panix.com
___________________________________________________________________________
End VTW BillWatch Issue #60, Date: Tue Oct 1 01:59:19 EDT 1996
___________________________________________________________________________
This file provided by:
Voters Telecommunications Watch
*** Watching out for your civil liberties ***
Email: vtw@vtw.org (preferred)
Gopher: gopher -p1/vtw gopher.panix.com
URL: http://www.vtw.org/
Telephone: (718) 596-2851 (last resort)
Copyright 1994-1996 (commercial use without permission prohibited)
===========================================================================
![[CNI Home Page]](/Images/home.gif)