A Friendly Debate Over Encryption Policy.
 
 
 

There are only two side to this debate.  The side that values privacy above all else, and the side that feels that law enforcement officials must have access to any file that they feel would be neccesary to aid in their work.  Those against restictions cry that there is no way of knowing where the restrictions and envasions wil end.  Once access is given, it can never be taken back.  Those on the other side feel that when matters of law enforcement and national security are at stake, then some invasion is justified.

For Restrictions

The President of the United States...

The highest ranking government official in favor of restrictions in, of course, the President.  In a memo to other hight ranking officials the President cliamed that when encryption products are used outside of the United States they jeopardize our foreign policy and national security interests.  If these products were to fall into the hands of international criminals, he furthers, the safety of United States citizens could be threatened.  Under these assumptions he suggests that the export of strong encryption products must be limited.  He declared that any product which could have a military use would be decreed as munitions and placed on the Commerce Control List administered by the Department of Commerce.
 

The Center for Security Policy...

Widespread use of unbreakable encryption is just what terrorists, drug lords, and other international criminal would love to see happen. Law enforcement officials need a controled opportunity view encrypted files as part of its responsibility to protect the citizens from these very types of criminal behavior.  If judicial approval is required, such as it is with wiretaps, this crucial funtion of law enforcement can be accomplished without viloation of rights or laws.

Representative Solomon...

Restrictions to encryption represent a safeguard to the satus quo in criminal justice.  Legislation lifting restrictions would eliminate one of our most important  law enforcement mechanisms.  This is why virtually every police and law enforcement official is opposed to a realxation of restrictions.  The Drug Enforcement Agency, the FBI, the National Security Agency, the NAtional Sheriffs' Association, the District Attorneys Association, and the Association of Chiefs of Police all favor restrictions.

Director Freeh...

Electronic intellegence is crucial to effective law enforcement.  If the FBI and local law enforcement officers were to lose the ability to access files because of widespread use of strong cryptography, the country would be unable to protect itself against terrorism, violent crime, foreign threats, drug traffiking, espionage, kidnapping, and other crimes.  Strong encryption would prevent law enforcement officials from carrying out court approved surveillence in life-and-death situations.  "Development of technology is moving so rapidly that several hundred court-authorized surveillances already have been prevented by new technological impediments associated with advanced communications equipment."
 
 
 

Against Restrictions...

The American Civil Liberties Union...

The ACLU argues that the Rule on Encryption Items Tranfered to the Commerce Control List is an obvious violation of our First Amendment rights.  These export restrictions. they feel, are a restraint on our right to free speech.  Other attempts at restrictions have been ruled to be unconstitutional.  Furthermore, there is no standard, and each case will be ruled upon on a case by case basis.  Encryption should hold the same value. and have the same rights as any other form of speech..

Senator Ashcroft...

If restrictions were imposed, not only would Big Brother be looming over the shoulders of American citizens on the net, he would also threaten to render our state of the art computer software engineers obsolete and unemployed.  "Granted, the Internet could be used to commit crimes, and 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."

Representative Goodlatte...

Strong encryption prevent crime, allowing people to protect their digital communications and computer systems against hackers and thieves.  It is incorrect to think that not enough is being done to prevent abuse of encryption when our current government policy leaves our computer systems vulnerable to criminal attack.  Also, strong encryption products are already available from foreign manufacturers via the internet.  Restrictions do not keep strong encryption out of the wrong hands, they serve only to keep American industry from fully competing in the global market.

Center for Democracy and Technology...

The Internet and other interactive media present new opportunities for individuals to communicate, publish and obtain an unprecedented array of information. But government censorship policies threaten the vital free flow of information. CDT is working to advance policies that champion free expression in the US and around the world.   The Internet is an open, decentralized network that was not specifically designed with security in mind. Because communications flow through multiple networks, your communications are vulnerable to the prying eyes of hackers, foreign governments, and, yes, even rogue law enforcement agents.  Encryption technologies, which scramble communications so that they can only be read by their intended recipients are vitally important to protect privacy, secure commercial transactions, and prevent crime.

..........