|
|
|
NetAction Notes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Published by NetAction Issue No. 3 September 10,
1996 Repost where appropriate. See copyright information at end of
message.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Privacy Legislation -- It Could Be A Matter Of Life And Death
The Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to vote Thursday on S. 1726,
which is a bill that promotes privacy in electronic communications by
eliminating restrictions on the export of software that codes E-mail
messages.
The technology, known as encryption, may not be familiar to the average
E-mail user in the U.S. While nothing prevents us from sending coded
messages within U.S. boundaries, it is currently illegal to export this
software overseas. Unfortunately, this means that it may not be available
to those who are most in need of it.
At a forum at Stanford University last summer, Phil Zimmerman, the
software engineer who invented Pretty Good Privacy (PGP), described how
his software was making it possible for human rights activists in
repressive nations to communicate with activists in the U.S. and other
democratically governed nations. By sharing information with the rest of
the world about the repression they experience at home, these activists
are helping to bring about change. Without the ability to code those
E-mail messages, however, many of these activists would literally be
risking their lives by sending such communications.
That's more than sufficient reason to support the elimination of export
controls on software for E-mail coding.
The information below is excerpted from an online legislative alert by
Voters Telecommunications Watch, and is reposted with VTW's permission.
It includes a brief description of the legislation and its current status,
and contact information for the Senators whose votes are needed on
Thursday.
You will find extensive background information on the encryption issue at
VTW's Web site: http://www.crypto.com/, and at the Web site of the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC): http://www.epic.org.
========================================================================
SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE SCHEDULED TO VOTE ON PRO-PRIVACY
ENCRYPTION LEGISLATION (S.1726) ON THU SEPTEMBER 12, 1996
YOUR HELP IS NEEDED TO ENSURE PASSAGE
CALL THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE (PHONE NUMBERS BELOW)
September 8, 1996
Please widely redistribute this document with this banner intact
until September 30, 1996
________________________________________________________________________
THE LATEST NEWS
On Thursday September 12, the Senate Commerce Committee is set to vote
on legislation designed to enhance privacy and security on the Internet.
The bill, known as the "Promotion of Commerce Online in the Digital Era
(Pro-CODE) Act," (S. 1726) is the best hope yet for real reform of U.S.
encryption policy, and its passage by the Commerce Committee would signify
a critical step forward in the struggle for privacy and security in the
Information Age.
The bill faces significant opposition from the Clinton Administration, who
continues to cling to a cold-war era view of U.S. encryption policy. IT
IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE HEAR FROM SUPPORTERS OF PRIVACY
AND SECURITY ON THE INTERNET. Please take a moment to contact the
committee by following the simple instructions below.
________________________________________________________________________
WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW
It's crucial that you call the Commerce committee members below and urge
them to pass S.1726 out of committee without amendments. (This is also
known as a "clean" bill.) Any opportunity for amendments (even if they
are good) opens us up to the possibility of hostile amendments that could
restrict the use of encryption even further than today's abysmal state.
It could even prohibit the use of encryption without Clipper Chip-like key
'escrow' technology, which includes built-in surveillance and monitoring
functionality.
1. Call/Fax the members of the Senate Commerce committee and urge
them to pass S.1726 out of committee "cleanly". Do not use email,
as it is not likely to be looked at in time to make a difference
for the markup on September 12th.
2. Sign the petition to support strong encryption at
http://www.crypto.com/petition/ ! Join other cyber-heroes as
Phil Zimmermann, Matt Blaze, Bruce Schneier, Vince Cate, Phil Karn, and
others who have also signed.
3. Between now and September 12, it is crucial that you call these members
of Congress.
P ST Name and Address Phone Fax
= == ======================== ============== ==============
D SC Hollings, Ernest F. 1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293
D MA Kerry, John F. 1-202-224-2742 1-202-224-8525
D HI Inouye, Daniel K. 1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747
D KY Ford, Wendell H. 1-202-224-4343 1-202-224-0046
D WV Rockefeller, John D. 1-202-224-6472 na
D LA Breaux, John B. 1-202-224-4623 na
D NV Bryan, Richard H. 1-202-224-6244 1-202-224-1867
D ND Dorgan, Byron L. 1-202-224-2551 1-202-224-1193
D NE Exon, J. J. 1-202-224-4224 1-202-224-5213
D OR Wyden, Ron* 1-202-224-5244 1-202-228-2717
R SD Pressler, Larry* 1-202-224-5842 1-202-224-1259
R MT Burns, Conrad R.(*sponsor) 1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594
R AK Stevens, Ted 1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-2354
R AZ McCain, John 1-202-224-2235 1-202-224-2862
R WA Gorton, Slade 1-202-224-3441 1-202-224-9393
R MS Lott, Trent* 1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262
R TX Hutchison, Kay Bailey 1-202-224-5922 1-202-224-0776
R ME Snowe, Olympia 1-202-224-5344 1-202-224-6853
R MO Ashcroft, John* 1-202-224-6154 na
R TN Frist, Bill 1-202-224-3344 1-202-224-8062
R MI Abraham, Spencer 1-202-224-4822 1-202-224-8834
* supporter or cosponsor. The bill also enjoys broad bi-partisan
support from members not on the committee including Senators Leahy
(D-VT) and Murray (D-WA).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Copyright 1996 by NetAction. All rights reserved. Material may be reposted
or reproduced for non-commercial use provided NetAction is cited as the
source.
NetAction is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting effective
grassroots citizen action campaigns by creating coalitions that link online
activists with grassroots organizations, providing training to online
activists in effective organizing strategies, and educating the public,
policymakers and the media about technology-based social and political
issues.
To subscribe to NetAction Notes, send a message to: <majordomo@manymedia.com>.
The body of the message should state: <subscribe netaction>
To unsubscribe at any time, send a message to: <majordomo@manymedia.com>
The body of the message should state: <unsubscribe netaction>
For more information about NetAction, contact Audrie Krause:
E-mail: akrause@igc.org Phone: (415) 775-8674
Or write to: NetAction 601 Van Ness Ave., No. 631 San Francisco, CA 94102
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NONPROFIT-NET - Nonprofits and the Internet Discussion. To unsubscribe
send mail to listproc@listproc.nonprofit.net: UNSUB NONPROFIT-NET
To subscribe send mail to that address: SUB NONPROFIT-NET YourFullName
Report any problems to Hubris Communications <hubris@gcnet.com>
9 responses total.
I am going to get right on this. This is one of the most important issues of our time.
agreed ... thankXX!
I moved the notice to M-Net and called Abraham's office this morning.
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 09:50:12 -0500 From: Audrie Krause <akrause@igc.apc.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nonprofit-net@online.nonprofit.net> Subject: Clarification on privacy bill Why We Need S. 1726 NetAction Notes No. 3, published Sept. 10, discussed S. 1726, which is a bill being considered by Congress that promotes privacy in electronic communications by eliminating restrictions on the export of software that codes E-mail messages. Declan McCullagh of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) notified me today that I was incorrect in reporting that U.S.-developed encryption technology such as Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) may not be exported overseas. Current law does allow for the export of certain weak versions of coding software, and it may be possible, though extremely unlikely, to obtain an exemption from government authorities in order to export stronger versions. Legislation is still needed, however, both to allow for the export of stronger forms of encryption and to prevent implementation of rules that would prevent unauthorized government and outside access to private electronic communication. Apologies for the confusion. -- Audrie Krause <<NetAction>> E-MAIL: akrause@igc.org 601 Van Ness Ave., No. 631 San Francisco, CA 94102 TELEPHONE: (415) 775-8674 FAX: (415) 673-3813 * * * WEB: http://www.netaction.org * * * --------------------------------------------------------------------- NONPROFIT-NET - Nonprofits and the Internet Discussion. To unsubscribe send mail to listproc@listproc.nonprofit.net: UNSUB NONPROFIT-NET To subscribe send mail to that address: SUB NONPROFIT-NET YourFullName Report any problems to Hubris Communications <hubris@gcnet.com>
Now linking to the cyberpunk conf. Grex's conference of net culture, and controversy. J cyber at the next OK: prompt.
It is now more than 9 months later, and I have just heard that The House International Relations Committee on Tuesday approved a bill to relax strict U.S. export controls on computer encoding technology. The bill, written by Virginia Republican Bob Goodlatte, would lift restrictions on the export of powerful encryption products. The Clinton Administration is fighting it, as one would expect. There's an article about this on CNN interactive, at http://cnnfn.com/hotstories/washun/wires/9707/23/encrypt_wg/ (I don't know how long they'll keep it up, there, though.) This bill has a long road ahead if it is to become law, unfortunately. It does look like a very good bill to me.
Now the legislative dangers have resurfaced. I received this action
notification from a CPSR mailing list.
FBU director Loius Freeh, with the full support of the Clinton
Administration, is backing an amendment to the "Secure Public
Networks Act" or Senate Bill S. 909. The new proposal is dated August
28th. Section 105 basically states:
* ISPs must decrypt user's messages upon court demand
* All encryption software must be key escrow enabled
* Illegal to manufacture, sell, distribute, or import encryption
The law, if passed, is proposed to go into effect January 1999. In
perfect "1984" form, the doublespeak name "Secure Public Networks Act"
is exactly the opposite. This is a mandate to force all networks to
become insecure. While such a law would obviously effect users of PGP or
similar encryption products many others would be affected as well,
especially those involved in Internet commerce.
Here is the text of the amendment
(this is scary stuff)
SEC. 105. PUBLIC ENCRYPTION PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
(a) As of January 1, 1999, public network service
providers offering encryption products or encryption
services shall ensure that such products or services
enable the immediate decryption of communications or
electronic information encrypted by such products or
services on the public network, upon receipt of a court
order, warrant, or certification, pursuant to section
106, without the knowledge or cooperation of the person
using such encryption products or services.
(b) As of January 1, 1999, it shall be unlawful for any
person to manufacture for sale or distribution within
the U.S., distribute within the U.S., sell within the
U.S., or import into the U.S., any product that can be
used to encrypt communications or electronic
information, unless that product:
(1) includes features, such as key recovery, trusted
third party compatibility or other means, that
(A) permit immediate decryption upon receipt of
decryption information by an authorized party without
the knowledge or cooperation of the person using such
encryption product; and
(B) is either enabled at the time of manufacture,
distribution, sale, or import, or may be enabled by the
purchase or end user; or
(2) can be used only on systems or networks that include
features, such as key recovery, trusted third party
compatibility or other means, that permit immediate
decryption by an authorized party without the knowledge
or cooperation of the person using such encryption
product.
(c) (1) Within 180 days of the enactment of this Act,
the Attorney General shall publish in the Federal
Register functional criteria for complying with the
decryption requirements set forth in this section.
(2) Within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, the
Attorney General shall promulgate procedures by which
data network service providers sand encryption product
manufacturers, sellers, re-sellers, distributors, and
importers may obtain advisory opinions as to whether a
decryption method will meet the requirements of this
section.
(3) Nothing in this Act or any other law shall be
construed as requiring the implementation of any
particular decryption method in order to satisfy the
requirements of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section.
Ick! Well, it is demanding capabilities for decryption be provided by (and apparently paid for by) the ISPs, who are sure to put up a fight. Maybe the big telcos will have to deal with this?
We need to fight this amendment. I saw some mail indicating that it may have been killed in committee. I need to find some confirmation. This is evil.
Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss