Seems to me that the choice of guaranteeing against government ability … to conduct wiretaps … probably is a choice for anarchy, a choice for more authority and more opportunity for criminals, and I don’t think that on the whole, looking around at our society, that we need too many choices of that kind.
Predictor: Baker, Stewart
Prediction, in context:As a member of a special panel at a policy debate on the Clipper Chip sponsored in January 1995 by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Stewart Baker was asked to discuss the question “The President can obtain the keys whenever he wants and actually there may be special rules, perhaps you can tell us, that apply to foreign surveillance in this area. Is that a correct point that the President can get the keys whenever he wishes?” He replied: ”The rules that govern the escrow authority require that anyone who wants to have access to them [the keys] have lawful authority to conduct the underlying wiretap. In the rules relating to the requirement of a warrant there are provisions for emergencies and the like. I think what Danny Weitzner is suggesting is that those rules could be rewritten in an emergency and I suppose you can’t guarantee against the rules being rewritten in an emergency. And that is a risk that we incur by having encryption that has a government control element to it. On the other hand, the only alternative that anyone has come up with that provides security at this stage is encryption in which that decision is left to every individual including every crook who wants to use this. And so that in a genuine sense we have a question of ‘who would you rather trust?’ Would you rather trust this to the marketplace in which people will make their own judgments, and you won’t be able to conduct wiretaps against people who misuse it, or are you prepared to trust the democratic institutions and the checks and balances on power that have worked for our country by and large over the years? I guess I think that this debate in the end is between the people who would rather have some kind of an automatic technological guarantee against the government misusing their authority and people who are prepared to trust our institutions to prevent abuse. Seems to me that the choice of guaranteeing against government ability … to conduct wiretaps … probably is a choice for anarchy, a choice for more authority and more opportunity for criminals, and I don’t think that on the whole, looking around at our society, that we need too many choices of that kind.”
Biography:Stewart Baker was described by The Washington Post (Nov. 20, 1995) as “one of the most techno-literate lawyers around.” Baker’s Washington, D.C., practice covered issues relating to digital commerce, electronic surveillance, encryption, privacy, national security and export controls. (Legislator/Politician/Lawyer.)
Date of prediction: January 19, 1995
Topic of prediction: Communication
Subtopic: Security/Encryption
Name of publication: Clipper Chip Debate at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York
Title, headline, chapter name: The Clipper Chip: Should the Government Control the Master Keys to Electronic Commerce?
Quote Type: Direct quote
Page number or URL of document at time of study:
http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/6805/articles/clipper/ny-debate-jan-19-95.txt
This data was logged into the Elon/Pew Predictions Database by: Beckett, Angela