IP: Burns Bill -- ACM IEEE response

[Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

Date: Mon,  1 Apr 1996 16:38:56 -0500 (EST)
From: "L. Jean Camp" <lc2m+ () andrew cmu edu>




Dave




I do not know if you have seen this letter. It has been signed by the
ACM USA and the IEEE USAB.  This letter directly contradicts, and
correctly so IMHO, some of the assertions in the letter sent by Dr.
Denning. I hope that you forward this to IP, and I note that the snail
mail address of Sen Burns is included -- should anyone have any comments
on which of the letters represents correct technical assessment Sen
Burns office is a good place to cc them.


Jean




              Association For Computing Machinery
                     Office of US Public Policy
                     666 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
                              Suite 301
                      Washington, DC 20003 USA
              (tel) 202/298-0842 (fax) 202/547-5482


      Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers
                     United States Activities
                        1828 L Street NW
                      Suite 1202April 2, 1996
                   Washington, DC 20036-5104 USA
              (tel) 202/785-0017 (fax) 202/785-0835






Honorable Conrad Burns
Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
US Senate SD-508
Washington, DC 20510


Dear Chairman Burns:


        On behalf of the nation's two leading computing and engineering 
associations, we are writing to support your efforts, and the efforts of 
the other cosponsors of the Encrypted Communications Privacy Act, to 
remove unnecessarily restrictive controls on the export of encryption 
technology.  The Encrypted Communications Privacy Act sets out the 
minimum changes that are necessary to the current export controls on  
encryption technology.  However, we believe that the inclusion of issues 
that are tangential to export, such as key escrow and encryption in 
domestic criminal activities, is not necessary.  The relaxation of 
export controls is of great economic importance to industry and users, 
and should not become entangled in more controversial matters.


        Current restrictions on the export of encryption technology harm 
the interests of the United States in three ways: they handicap American 
producers of software & hardware, prevent the development of a secure 
information infrastructure, and limit the ability of Americans using new 
online services to protect their privacy.  The proposed legislation will 
help mitigate all of these problems, though more will need to be done to 
assure continued US leadership in this important hi-tech sector.


        Technological progress has moved encryption from the realm of 
national security into the commercial sphere. Current policies, as well 
as the policy-making processes, should reflect this new reality. The 
legislation takes a necessary first step in shifting authority to the 
Commerce Department and removing restrictions on certain encryption 
products.  Future liberalization of export controls will allow Americans 
to excel in this market.


        The removal of out-dated restrictions on exports will also enable 
the creation of a Global Information Infrastructure sufficiently secure 
to provide seamless connectivity to customers previously unreachable by 
American companies.   The United States is a leader in Internet 
commerce.  However, Internet commerce requires cryptography.  Thus 
American systems have been hindered by cold-war restraints on the 
necessary cryptography as these systems have moved from the laboratory 
to the marketplace.  This legislation would open the market to secure, 
private, ubiquitous electronic commerce.  The cost of not opening the 
market may include the loss of leadership in computer security 
technologies, just at the time when Internet users around the world will 
need good security to launch commercial applications.


        For this legislation to fulfill its promise the final approval of 
export regulations must be based on analysis of financial and commercial 
requirements and opportunities, not simply on the views of experts in 
national security cryptography. Therefore, we urge you to look at ways 
to further relax restrictive barriers.


        Finally, the legislation will serve all users of electronic 
information systems by supporting the development of a truly global 
market for secure desktop communications.  This will help establish 
private and secure spaces for the work of users, which is of particular 
interest to the members of the IEEE/USA and the USACM.


        On behalf of the both the USACM and the IEEE/USA we look forward 
to working with you on this important legislation to relax export 
controls and promote the development of a robust, secure, and reliable 
communications infrastructure for the twenty-first century.


        Please contact Deborah Rudolph in the IEEE Washington Office at 
(202) 785-0017 or Lauren Gelman in the ACM Public Policy Office at (202) 
298-0842 for any additional information.


                                                
                                                Sincerely,




                                                Barbara Simons, Ph.D.3
                                                Chair, U.S. Public Policy
                                                Committee of ACM




                                                Joel B. Snyder, P.E.
                                                Vice President,
Professional Act
ivities and
                                                Chair, United States
Activities 
Board


cc:     Members of the Subcommittee on 
        Science, Technology and Space