WASHINGTON-Despite threats that legislation to relax export controls on encryption technology will hand over that technology to terrorists and weaken American national security, encryption legislation continued plugging along on Capitol Hill last week.
The House telecom subcommittee passed a new version of the Security and Freedom through Encryption, known as the SAFE Act. The new version will create an encryption facility within the FBI and increase the length of time the Secretary of Commerce has to evaluate export applications.
Meanwhile on June 10, the Senate Commerce Committee learned its version-the Promote Reliable On Line Transactions to Encourage Commerce and Trade Act, the PROTECT Act-is opposed by the Clinton administration.
Encryption technology is used to scramble computer data. The computer industry has been trying for years to get export controls on encryption technology relaxed but has met resistance from the FBI and National Security Agency.
Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.), chairman of the House telecom subcommittee, said the SAFE Act was an important piece of legislation for “our digital economy,” but changes were needed. For this reason, he offered a substitute bill.
Tauzin’s bill ultimately passed by voice vote but not until Rep. Michael Oxley (R-Ohio) continued his assault on the bill, which he says is not necessary. Oxley was joined in his opposition by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), the only member of the telecom subcommittee who also serves on the House Select Committee on Intelligence.
The Oxley/Wilson team offered two amendments to extend the review period to 30 days from 15 days and to enlarge the list of reasons why the Secretary of Commerce could reject an export application. The original SAFE Act allowed the Commerce Secretary 15 days, but limited his reasons for rejecting an application.
The list would be enlarged to include such things as organized crime, espionage, child sex abuse and drug trafficking. Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), ranking Democrat on the telecom subcommittee, said the amendment required the Commerce Secretary “to divine” whether the encryption product would be used by organized crime. “The Mafia uses automobiles in its getaways,” Markey said.
The House Commerce Committee has not yet scheduled a full committee mark up of the bill.
Oxley is not the only one who believes terrorists and other undesirable characters will get a hold of encryption products if the bill is allowed to go forward. The Clinton administration, in no uncertain terms, told the Senate Commerce Committee it strenuously opposes its version of legislation to relax encryption export controls.
The administration believes the PROTECT Act will allow encryption products to fall into the hands of terrorists. “The fact that one terrorist is using strong encryption does not concern us. What concerns us is legislation that would allow the ubiquitous use of encryption around the world,” said Barbara A. McNamara, NSA deputy director.
Similar concerns killed an encryption bill last Congress. Senators who favor the PROTECT Act said the administration was “playing the terrorist card.”
Administration opposition stems from a belief encryption products will fall into the wrong hands because a private-industry panel-not the government-would determine whether the key bit strength being proposed for export is generally available.
Various news outlets contributed to this report.
