If companies want to develop and sell competing, unescrowed systems to other Americans, if they insist on hastening a brave new world of criminal immunity, they can still do so – as long as they’re willing to use their own money. That’s what the free market is all about. Of course, a free market in the U.S. doesn’t mean freedom to export encryption that may damage U.S. national security.
Predictor: Baker, Stewart
Prediction, in context:In a 1994 article he wrote for Wired, Stewart Baker, chief counsel for the National Security Agency, refuted “seven myths of key escrow encryption.” In it, he writes: ”If companies want to develop and sell competing, unescrowed systems to other Americans, if they insist on hastening a brave new world of criminal immunity, they can still do so – as long as they’re willing to use their own money. That’s what the free market is all about. Of course, a free market in the U.S. doesn’t mean freedom to export encryption that may damage U.S. national security. As our experience in World War II shows, encryption is the kind of technology that wins and loses wars. With that in mind, we must be careful about exports of encryption. This isn’t the place for a detailed discussion of controls, but one thing should be clear: They don’t limit the encryption that Americans can buy or use. The government allows Americans to take even the most sophisticated encryption abroad for their own protection. Nor do controls require that software or hardware companies ‘dumb down’ their U.S. products. Software firms have complained that it’s inconvenient to develop a second encryption scheme for export, but they already have to make changes from one country to the next – in language, alphabet, date systems, and handwriting recognition, to take just a few examples. And they’d still have to develop multiple encryption programs even if the U.S. abolished export controls, because a wide variety of national restrictions on encryption are already in place in countries from Europe to Asia.”
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 1, 1994
Topic of prediction: Communication
Subtopic: Security/Encryption
Name of publication: Wired
Title, headline, chapter name: Don’t Worry be Happy: Why Clipper is Good for You
Quote Type: Direct quote
Page number or URL of document at time of study:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto/Key_escrow/Clipper/clipper_good_nsa.article
This data was logged into the Elon/Pew Predictions Database by: Beckett, Angela