Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 16:19:39 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V2#037 Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 27 Apr 93 Volume 2 : Issue: 037 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Clipper Chip Re: Computer Privacy Digest news Re: Reprint Roszak: _The Cult of Information_, Y or N? promises never made to limit SS# use (regardless of rumors) The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect of technology on privacy. The digest is moderated and gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy (Moderated). Submissions should be sent to comp-privacy@pica.army.mil and administrative requests to comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil. Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 17 Apr 93 14:04:30 -0700 From: Dean Ridgway Subject: Clipper Chip Hello, I recently read this in alt.internet.services and thought it would be appropriate to cross-post. From: sphughes@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Shaun P. Hughes) Newsgroups: alt.internet.services Subject: Computer Security Message-ID: <1993Apr17.021904.27040@csus.edu> Date: 17 Apr 93 02:19:04 GMT Sender: news@csus.edu Organization: San Francisco State University Lines: 311 Just thought some of you netters might be interested in this one. Please direct follow-ups to sci.crypt ************* Note: This file will also be available via anonymous file transfer from csrc.ncsl.nist.gov in directory /pub/nistnews and via the NIST Computer Security BBS at 301-948-5717. --------------------------------------------------- THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary _________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release April 16, 1993 STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY The President today announced a new initiative that will bring the Federal Government together with industry in a voluntary program to improve the security and privacy of telephone communications while meeting the legitimate needs of law enforcement. The initiative will involve the creation of new products to accelerate the development and use of advanced and secure telecommunications networks and wireless communications links. For too long there has been little or no dialogue between our private sector and the law enforcement community to resolve the tension between economic vitality and the real challenges of protecting Americans. Rather than use technology to accommodate the sometimes competing interests of economic growth, privacy and law enforcement, previous policies have pitted government against industry and the rights of privacy against law enforcement. Sophisticated encryption technology has been used for years to protect electronic funds transfer. It is now being used to protect electronic mail and computer files. While encryption technology can help Americans protect business secrets and the unauthorized release of personal information, it also can be used by terrorists, drug dealers, and other criminals. A state-of-the-art microcircuit called the "Clipper Chip" has been developed by government engineers. The chip represents a new approach to encryption technology. It can be used in new, relatively inexpensive encryption devices that can be attached to an ordinary telephone. It scrambles telephone communications using an encryption algorithm that is more powerful than many in commercial use today. This new technology will help companies protect proprietary information, protect the privacy of personal phone conversations and prevent unauthorized release of data transmitted electronically. At the same time this technology preserves the ability of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to intercept lawfully the phone conversations of criminals. A "key-escrow" system will be established to ensure that the "Clipper Chip" is used to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans. Each device containing the chip will have two unique 2 "keys," numbers that will be needed by authorized government agencies to decode messages encoded by the device. When the device is manufactured, the two keys will be deposited separately in two "key-escrow" data bases that will be established by the Attorney General. Access to these keys will be limited to government officials with legal authorization to conduct a wiretap. The "Clipper Chip" technology provides law enforcement with no new authorities to access the content of the private conversations of Americans. To demonstrate the effectiveness of this new technology, the Attorney General will soon purchase several thousand of the new devices. In addition, respected experts from outside the government will be offered access to the confidential details of the algorithm to assess its capabilities and publicly report their findings. The chip is an important step in addressing the problem of encryption's dual-edge sword: encryption helps to protect the privacy of individuals and industry, but it also can shield criminals and terrorists. We need the "Clipper Chip" and other approaches that can both provide law-abiding citizens with access to the encryption they need and prevent criminals from using it to hide their illegal activities. In order to assess technology trends and explore new approaches (like the key-escrow system), the President has directed government agencies to develop a comprehensive policy on encryption that accommodates: -- the privacy of our citizens, including the need to employ voice or data encryption for business purposes; -- the ability of authorized officials to access telephone calls and data, under proper court or other legal order, when necessary to protect our citizens; -- the effective and timely use of the most modern technology to build the National Information Infrastructure needed to promote economic growth and the competitiveness of American industry in the global marketplace; and -- the need of U.S. companies to manufacture and export high technology products. The President has directed early and frequent consultations with affected industries, the Congress and groups that advocate the privacy rights of individuals as policy options are developed. 3 The Administration is committed to working with the private sector to spur the development of a National Information Infrastructure which will use new telecommunications and computer technologies to give Americans unprecedented access to information. This infrastructure of high-speed networks ("information superhighways") will transmit video, images, HDTV programming, and huge data files as easily as today's telephone system transmits voice. Since encryption technology will play an increasingly important role in that infrastructure, the Federal Government must act quickly to develop consistent, comprehensive policies regarding its use. The Administration is committed to policies that protect all Americans' right to privacy while also protecting them from those who break the law. Further information is provided in an accompanying fact sheet. The provisions of the President's directive to acquire the new encryption technology are also available. For additional details, call Mat Heyman, National Institute of Standards and Technology, (301) 975-2758. --------------------------------- QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S TELECOMMUNICATIONS INITIATIVE Q: Does this approach expand the authority of government agencies to listen in on phone conversations? A: No. "Clipper Chip" technology provides law enforcement with no new authorities to access the content of the private conversations of Americans. Q: Suppose a law enforcement agency is conducting a wiretap on a drug smuggling ring and intercepts a conversation encrypted using the device. What would they have to do to decipher the message? A: They would have to obtain legal authorization, normally a court order, to do the wiretap in the first place. They would then present documentation of this authorization to the two entities responsible for safeguarding the keys and obtain the keys for the device being used by the drug smugglers. The key is split into two parts, which are stored separately in order to ensure the security of the key escrow system. Q: Who will run the key-escrow data banks? A: The two key-escrow data banks will be run by two independent entities. At this point, the Department of Justice and the Administration have yet to determine which agencies will oversee the key-escrow data banks. Q: How strong is the security in the device? How can I be sure how strong the security is? A: This system is more secure than many other voice encryption systems readily available today. While the algorithm will remain classified to protect the security of the key escrow system, we are willing to invite an independent panel of cryptography experts to evaluate the algorithm to assure all potential users that there are no unrecognized vulnerabilities. Q: Whose decision was it to propose this product? A: The National Security Council, the Justice Department, the Commerce Department, and other key agencies were involved in this decision. This approach has been endorsed by the President, the Vice President, and appropriate Cabinet officials. Q: Who was consulted? The Congress? Industry? A: We have on-going discussions with Congress and industry on encryption issues, and expect those discussions to intensify as we carry out our review of encryption policy. We have briefed members of Congress and industry leaders on the decisions related to this initiative. Q: Will the government provide the hardware to manufacturers? A: The government designed and developed the key access encryption microcircuits, but it is not providing the microcircuits to product manufacturers. Product manufacturers can acquire the microcircuits from the chip manufacturer that produces them. Q: Who provides the "Clipper Chip"? A: Mykotronx programs it at their facility in Torrance, California, and will sell the chip to encryption device manufacturers. The programming function could be licensed to other vendors in the future. Q: How do I buy one of these encryption devices? A: We expect several manufacturers to consider incorporating the "Clipper Chip" into their devices. Q: If the Administration were unable to find a technological solution like the one proposed, would the Administration be willing to use legal remedies to restrict access to more powerful encryption devices? A: This is a fundamental policy question which will be considered during the broad policy review. The key escrow mechanism will provide Americans with an encryption product that is more secure, more convenient, and less expensive than others readily available today, but it is just one piece of what must be the comprehensive approach to encryption technology, which the Administration is developing. The Administration is not saying, "since encryption threatens the public safety and effective law enforcement, we will prohibit it outright" (as some countries have effectively done); nor is the U.S. saying that "every American, as a matter of right, is entitled to an unbreakable commercial encryption product." There is a false "tension" created in the assessment that this issue is an "either-or" proposition. Rather, both concerns can be, and in fact are, harmoniously balanced through a reasoned, balanced approach such as is proposed with the "Clipper Chip" and similar encryption techniques. Q: What does this decision indicate about how the Clinton Administration's policy toward encryption will differ from that of the Bush Administration? A: It indicates that we understand the importance of encryption technology in telecommunications and computing and are committed to working with industry and public-interest groups to find innovative ways to protect Americans' privacy, help businesses to compete, and ensure that law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to fight crime and terrorism. Q: Will the devices be exportable? Will other devices that use the government hardware? A: Voice encryption devices are subject to export control requirements. Case-by-case review for each export is required to ensure appropriate use of these devices. The same is true for other encryption devices. One of the attractions of this technology is the protection it can give to U.S. companies operating at home and abroad. With this in mind, we expect export licenses will be granted on a case-by-case basis for U.S. companies seeking to use these devices to secure their own communications abroad. We plan to review the possibility of permitting wider exportability of these products. ********************* Amendment IV Seizures, Searches and Warrants [Section 1.] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Proposed September 25, 1789; ratified December 15, 1791 -- Shaun P. Hughes sphughes@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu finger for PGP 2.2 Public Key ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Apr 93 22:20:36 GMT From: Graham Toal Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest news I challenge the readership to post meaningful articles. I am surprised that up until this digest no one has brought up the clipper chip. It is subjects like that for which this forum was set up. That's probably because the debate is better served by one of the non-moderated groups that is discussing it; too much is happening to afford the luxury of long turnaround times in discussion. For anyone interested, the majority of the debate is going on in the new group alt.privacy.clipper; you can also find it in comp.org.eff.talk, sci.crypt, alt.privacy, alt.security, alt.security.pgp, comp.dcom.telecom, and stray offshoots in a dozen other groups. alt.privacy.clipper is the place to go however. G ------------------------------ From: Renee Alexander Subject: Re: Reprint Roszak: _The Cult of Information_, Y or N? Date: 25 Apr 1993 01:10:43 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Looks like a good tome. I'd give it a definite yes. Just out of curosity though, I wonder if this book is presently available anywhere on the net as an electronic pub. Anybody know? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1993 14:39:09 -0700 From: Jim Warren Subject: promises never made to limit SS# use (regardless of rumors) FYI, I raised this question, and received the following reply from Rand's Willis Ware, who chaired the congressionally-established U.S. Privacy Commission for many years -- a nationally recognized expert in privacy issues for several decades. [posted with Willis' permission, please note :-) ] --jim ======== From jake.rand.org!willis@netcomsv.netcom.com Fri Apr 23 14:01:29 1993 To: Jim Warren Subject: Re: promises to limit SSN use? From: "Willis H. Ware" >>I have often heard the *rumor* that there were assurances/promises that the >>SSN would not be used as a universal citizen id number, back when SS was >>first being debated/created. NO -- no assurances, no promises. I can help clarify but not provide precise citations. The SSA is in no position to lay down the law on how the SSN is used; it has no suc authority. When the SSAN [A for account] it was clearly stated that the number was for one's "bank account" with SSA. At that time and for a long time, the SSN cards would say "not intended to be an identifation number" -- or words to that effect. I believe that the phrase no longer appears on the cards. Franklin Delano issued an executive order directing that any new system of numbers that Federal agencies wished to create was to use the SSN. So he's the one that started it all. Hence, we have the DoD with SSNs as military ID, IRS with SSN=TIN, Medicare with its number = SSN+letter. Then Congress in the privacy act of '74 put a stop to use of the SSN as an ID but turned around in the tax act of '76 to allow use of the SSN as an ID if authorized by Congress! Subsequently Congress authorized its use by the states for a lot of things; e.g., driver licenses, tracking delinquent parents. I'm not sure how the laws read; they may not use the word "identification" but rather talk about "system of numbers" or "system of enumeration." In the private sector, there is nothing that governs how the SSN can be used. There are a few things, like the FICA accounting and the TIN accounting, that must use the SSN for individuals; but otherwise, the private sector is free to do as it pleases and it has. Your assistant might take a look at the original SSA Act [1933?] and see what it says about the number. It may be in there that something is said about it being an account number; but obviously there is no prohibition against other things or we wouldn't have it happening. That's a once over lightly. ===== From jake.rand.org!willis@netcomsv.netcom.com Fri Apr 23 18:14:38 1993 To: jwarren@autodesk.com (Jim Warren) Cc: willis@rand.org Subject: Re: promises to limit SSN use? From: "Willis H. Ware" >>> ........ (Don't know why the feds couldn't >>>mandate no extracurricular use of the SSAN along with their fed-mandated >>>speed limits -- via some ransom or other :-). Oh, I know that answer. We, the country, were not very smart in 1933 in regard to databases and all their implications. We didn't smarten up in fact until well into the late 50s or early 60s and by then, the SSN horse was well on his way out of the pasture. By the time the Privacy Commission and the DHEW Committee before it tried to put on the brakes, it was no longer feasible; the brakes had long ago vanished in smoky oblivion. You may surely share what I sent you; it's all public knowledge. Glad that I could be of help. ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V2 #037 ******************************