Dear Media, the same folks who brought you the gun control laws you love so much, are now after YOU! NOW will believe that the pro 2nd Amendment people are NOT paranoid? The following was posted on a BBS: Quote: This thread is copied from "sci.crypt" on Usenet. -Bruce >From: schuman@sgi.com (Aaron Schuman) Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: Congress to order crypto trapdoors? Date: 11 Apr 91 23:30:28 GMT Organization: Silicon Graphics 415-335-1901 Lines: 83 The United States Senate is considering a bill that would require manufacturers of cryptographic equipment to introduce a trap door, and to make that trap door accessible to law enforcement officials. If you feel, as I do, that the risk of abuse far outweighs the potential benefits, please write to Senators Joseph Biden and Dennis DeConcini, and to the Senators that represent your state, asking that they propose a friendly amendment to their bill removing this requirement. I don't have exact addresses for Senators Biden and DeConcini, and I hope someone will post them here, but the Washington DC post office can deliver letters addressed to Senator Joseph Biden Senator Dennis DeConcini United States Senate and United States Senate Washington, DC Washington, DC RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest Wednesday 10 April 1991 Volume 11 : Issue 43 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 17:23 EDT >From: WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL Subject: U.S. Senate 266, Section 2201 (cryptographics) Senate 266 introduced by Mr. Biden (for himself and Mr. DeConcini) contains the following section: SEC. 2201. COOPERATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other communications when appropriately authorized by law. ------------------------------ The referenced language requires that manufacturers build trap-doors into all cryptographic equipment and that providers of cconfidential channels reserve to themselves, their agents, and assigns the ability to read all traffic. Are there readers of this list that believe that it is possible for manufacturers of crypto gear to include such a mechanism and also to reserve its use to those "appropriately authorized by law" to employ it? Are there readers of this list who believe that providers of electronic communications services can reserve to themselves the ability to read all the traffic and still keep the traffic "confidential" in any meaningful sense? Is there anybody out there who would buy crypto gear or confidential services from vendors who were subject to such a law? David Kahn asserts that the sovereign always attempts to reserve the use of cryptography to himself. Nonetheless, if this language were to be enacted into law, it would represent a major departure. An earlier Senate went to great pains to assure itself that there were no trapdoors in the DES. Mr. Biden and Mr. DeConcini want to mandate them. The historical justification of such reservation has been "national security;" just when that justification begins to wane, Mr. Biden wants to use "law enforcement." Both justifications rest upon appeals to fear. In the United States the people, not the Congress, are sovereign; it should not be illegal for the people to have access tto communications that the government cannot read. We should be free from unreasonable search and seizure; we should be free from self-incrimination. The government already has powerful tools of investigation at its disposal; it has demonstrated precious little restraint in their use. Any assertion that all use of any such trap-doors would be only "when appropriately authorized by law" is absurd on its face. It is not humanly possible to construct a mechanism that could meet that requirement; any such mechanism would be subject to abuse. I suggest that you begin to stock up on crypto gear while you can still get it. Watch the progress of this law carefully. Begin to identify vendors across the pond. William Hugh Murray, Executive Consultant, Information System Security 21 Locust Avenue, Suite 2D, New Canaan, Connecticut 06840 203 966 4769 Article 3419 of sci.crypt: >From: karn@epic.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.privacy Subject: Re: Congress Mandates Backdoors Date: 15 Apr 91 23:51:07 GMT Organization: Packet Communications Research Group (Bellcore) Lines: 261 Since I was looking for any excuse to procrastinate on my taxes this past weekend, I composed this letter to Senators Biden and DeConcini. --Phil 25-B Hillcrest Rd Warren, NJ 07059-5304 April 13, 1991 Senator Dennis DeConcini United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator DeConcini: Yesterday I read a most disturbing computer network article about a piece of legislation you are proposing that apparently attempts to regulate the use of cryptography to protect the secrecy of private communications. I refer to this excerpt: Senate 266 introduced by Mr. Biden (for himself and Mr. DeConcini) contains the following section: SEC. 2201. COOPERATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT It is the sense of Congress that providers of elec- tronic communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the govern- ment to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other communications when appropriately authorized by law. The author of the article continues: The referenced language requires that manufacturers build trap-doors into all cryptographic equipment and that providers of confidential channels reserve to themselves, their agents, and assigns the ability to read all traffic. I would like to know if this is indeed the intent of your legislation. If so, it will be the most futile exercise of authority since King Canute set up his throne on the beach, ordered the sea to withdraw and probably got his feet wet for his trouble. I would like the opportunity to explain. First of all, this legislation will not serve its ostensible purpose (facilitating a legitimate police investigation involving encrypted communications or stored data). Quite April 15, 1991 - 2 - simply, cryptography exists; it cannot be uninvented. And with today's powerful, inexpensive and readily available computer technology, anyone - law-abiding citizen or crimi- nal - can apply a little technical knowledge and build and operate his own cryptographic communications system. You see, with the right software, even the simplest personal computer becomes an excellent cipher machine - and the software is readily and widely available. I know of perhaps six public-domain programs that do the National Bureau of Standards' Data Encryption Standard (DES); I wrote one of them. DES software is also available in several publicly available books and magazines and from several commercial suppliers. Even without all this software, an interested programmer can find the complete specifications for DES in any of several dozen textbooks on cryptography - not to men- tion the official Federal standards themselves. And DES is not the only cryptographic algorithm available to the public. Because of concerns about possible weaknesses in the DES (including unproven allegations that the National Security Agency introduced a "trap door" into the design), research into stronger alternatives has been brisk. New algorithms appear all the time, and they come from cryptolo- gists all over the world. The NSA has abandoned its attempts to control the publication of private cryptographic research because it is clearly protected by the First Amendment. It is precisely because computers are so easily turned into cipher machines that your reference to "providers of elec- tronic communications services" is so pointless. A smart criminal won't trust anyone with his plain text that he doesn't have to - especially not a communications provider subject to subpoena. He'll encrypt on an end-to-end basis with his own computers, his own cryptographic software and with cryptographic keys known only to him (and protected by his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination). Com- munications service providers won't have the opportunity to turn plain text over to law enforcement because they'll never see it. You also refer to "manufacturers of electronic communica- tions service equipment," which I assume means "manufactur- ers of cryptographic hardware." But this would be equally ineffective: no criminal would use a ready-made cipher machine with a "trap door" built into it when he can so easily turn his own personal computer into a cipher machine without a trap door, and at much lower cost. Indeed, spe- cialized cryptographic hardware has only one real advantage over cryptographic software running on general purpose com- puters: the hardware is generally more tamper-resistant. This is usually important only in highly sensitive applica- tions such as banking, where one does not want to trust one's employees too much. It is irrelevant where the owner April 15, 1991 - 3 - and user of the computer, the person being protected by cryptography and the person who knows the key are all the same. This brings me to the second fundamental flaw in your pro- posed legislation. Even if "trap doors" were installed in cryptographic equipment of the type used by banks (among others), how could their use be limited to persons "duly authorized by law"? Experience has shown electronic vandals (popularly known as "hackers" or "phone phreaks") to be highly adept at discovering and exploiting hidden security weaknesses in computer and communication systems. What is to prevent such persons from discovering and exploiting weaknesses deliberately introduced in response to your legislation? They certainly wouldn't remain secret for long. Every modern cipher is designed to rely entirely on the secrecy of the key for its security. The design of the cipher itself must be assumed to be completely public, because eventually it will be. (This philosophy is captured in a popular computer science saying: "Security through obscurity doesn't work.") Indeed, what procedures could guarantee that "trap doors" would not be abused by law enforcement or other government personnel not properly authorized by court order? The rise of computer technology has opened up many opportunities for invasion of privacy and the abuse of government power. It is only fitting that the same technology in the hands of indi- viduals can also put some real teeth into the guarantees of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The government is simply going to have to get used to its citizens using cryptography that it cannot break. The police may have to give up on wiretaps and information seizures and resort to the more traditional (and less invasive and less easily abused) ways of conducting investigations, such as informants and grants of immunity for testimony. They may even have to give up entirely on enforcing certain laws, e.g., those prohibiting the mere possession of information. Perhaps the government can then redirect its resources toward enforcing laws that make more sense. A popular metaphor states that the computer is an extension of the human mind. With cryptography, this metaphor becomes reality in one important way - a user can make the informa- tion stored in a computer or transmitted over a phone line just as private as the information in his own mind. And I wouldn't have it any other way in a free society. Senator, I urge you to abandon this ill-advised proposal. At best, it will be ignored. At its worst, it would decrease security for law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to help bring clever criminals to justice. Sincerely yours, Philip R. Karn, Jr. Article 3420 of sci.crypt: >From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: Re: Senate Bill 266 would require trapdoors in encryption gear Date: 16 Apr 91 03:05:59 GMT Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 23 In article <17056@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >"If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy"... Absolutely -- this hits the nail right on the head. Just as gun control activists, who inspired the slogan on which the above was based, can achieve at best the disarming of law-abiding citizens, leaving them no defense against potential assault by those who ignore such laws, other than to die or to break the law themselves. The right to privacy unfortunately was not considered sufficiently questionable by the framers of the US Constitution to require explicit mention in the Constitution (as was done for the right to keep and bear arms); it was among those rights that the 10th Amendment reserved to the people. I am all for catching genuine criminals, i.e. those who injure others deliberately. However, I am not willing to have perfectly reasonable activities on my part be declared "criminal" by the legal system as part of misguided attempts to "do something" about crime. Having recently sat in on several court proceedings, I can attest to the fact that there are a lot of fundamental problems with the entire US system of justice that should be addressed if crime is truly to be controlled. Article 3422 of sci.crypt: >From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: Re: Congress Mandates Backdoors Date: 16 Apr 91 02:54:47 GMT Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 12 -COOPERATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT -It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic -communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications -service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the -government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other -communications when appropriately authorized by law. "Damn, I wish I were The Man!" (with apologies to Cindy Lee Berryhill). With representatives like these, our remaining freedoms are not long for the world. Unquote