Security & Privacy

The objective of Key Escrow does not revolve around cryptography, anymore than the objective of cryptography revolves around cryptography. Keys are about absolute access to compartmented knowledge and cryptography is about the means of protection and control of that knowledge. Key Escrow is essentially a concept whereby American citizens are obligated to allow our Government to access any part of all knowledge as expediently as it sees fit.

The rational for Key Escrow is often described in terms of the greater good of all Americans. The argument is essentially that people who are not guilty of wrongdoing should therefore not be concerned. After all, this access would only take place within the due process of law and people who are being investigated are already required by the courts of law to provide encryption keys. Therefore it goes on, Key Escrow should actually be considered just a time saver over today's existing process. After all, if America is to be safe from criminals and terrorists then we need to immediately implement a Federal encryption key escrow system.

Currently, agents monitoring e-mail traffic may know suspected terrorists are talking but can't determine what they are saying. Giving government the keys could help terrorists before they strike, says Gene Poteat, president of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.

There is no explicit Federal right to privacy within the United States. However the basis of Constitutional Government inherently involves the right to privacy, for instance to cast votes. If everyone were to be required to publicly announce their vote, it would bias their decision. If citizens were required to say whom they voted for as a result of the a court decision then they may not vote or may not vote as they would have in the future. We might view our Universe by saying that the Government allows the citizen to vote privately. On the other hand we could say that citizens allow Government to operate through the privacy of the vote.

There exists two states of consciousness, the public and the private. Public consciousness is that which we communicate to others and private consciousness is that which we do not wish to publicly communicate. What is implied by this statement is the concept of free will. This is the idea that man is capable of deciding onto himself and with others that which is morally right and wrong, that which is just and unjust, and the path which mankind should and must take. This idea is also the basis of tolerance and understanding. It implies that the individual man is capable of thinking one way and acting in an entirely different manner. Private communication, is a part of private thoughts and as such are a tangible exploration of possibilities not a template for intent or physical action.

The existence of a legal ability of Government to be able to strip the concept of privacy from the citizen at will changes not only the nature of communication but of free thought. Knowledge that can be opened and inspected by others means that knowledge and all subsequent transactions after that knowledge, no matter the intent involves the acceptance of risk. The true risk of the destruction of personal privacy implies that personal thoughts will be at great risk of being interpreted by some unknown future societal and governmental standards. Any argument that Key Escrow is just a time saver if therefore false. "Private" thoughts rather than deeds of men will be far easier and more economic targets to legislatures, law enforcement and prosecutors. My ability to argue this perspective is in jeopardy if I can not also communicate to others of my choosing private ideas and concepts which will not be held against me in the future.

Key Escrow is a slippery slope. With the discovery of genetic tools that can fingerprint the individual we have actually produced a genetic "key" that is unique to our individuality. With the recent advent of crude new laboratory technology that can map the way that our mind is operating, we can actually begin to directly determine what an individual is thinking. The time will soon arrive when mapping such thoughts will take place across the room or who knows, perhaps even across a football stadium.

Furthermore, from a technical perspective Key Escrow "inevitably tends to render systems built on the technology very vulnerable," said Scott Schnell, a senior vice president at RSA Security Inc., which has produced encryption products since the early 90s. If there is one back door, more hidden ones become easier to hide. The potential of flaws are greater and more difficult to identify. Reliability and trust are diminished.

And then there are the practical and functional arguments. Encryption supporters argued that a back door would be pointless -- that key escrow systems are unenforceable and only hurt the law-abiding -- because encryption software without the feature is already freely available worldwide -- released by foreign mathematicians or sneaked out of the United States.

Faced with U.S. restrictions, they argue, outlaws would simply turn to an unrestricted products.

My conclusions are based on an obvious observation. Security 101 begins with a single practical rule. Never make things more difficult for the users than for the intruders. The second rule of security says that if users don't find the security solution practical they will avoid and circumvent it. Terrorist could not possibly care if they break the laws because they expect to break every law and die anyway. In this dyslexic perspective of security we all witnessing, it now appears as though our Government is in the process of placing far more restrictions on Americans than terrorists in the name of American nationalism. Most of the security decisions that are being made are politically driven to show that our Government is doing something.

A September 13-14 Newsweek poll (3 days after the bombing of New York and the Pentagon), says that 54 percent of Americans said they would support eroding encryption protection to help law enforcement monitor terrorism suspects -- even if it might affect privacy and business practices. Thirty-nine percent were opposed, the rest undecided.

One third of New Yorkers favor establishing internment camps for "individuals who authorities identify as being sympathetic to terrorist causes," according to a poll from the Siena College Research Institute. Fifty percent of those surveyed for the statewide poll said they were opposed to that idea while 15 percent had no opinion. The telephone poll of 610 New York state residents over age 18 was conducted from Sept. 12, the day after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, through Sept. 19. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Public opinion is ultimately a neural technical justification at best because it does not necessarily mean a decision based on it would be feasible, just, moral or right for America. In fact, the primary reason why America faces many of the security problems it has in the past has involved going with public opinion rather than sound security practices. On the other hand, security policies tend to gather steam and irrationally overcompensate to the point where reason and judgment is lost.

After the hijackings that left more than 6,500 Americans dead or missing, Federal policymakers have called for limits on popular encryption software that allows users to scramble Internet communications for privacy. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, said after a Capitol Hill panel on Internet security that proposed remedies such as "trap doors" to allow government surveillance would effectively make Internet communications less secure. In the wake of last Tuesday's hijackings that left more than 6,500 Americans dead or missing, policymakers have called for limits on popular encryption software that allows users to scramble Internet communications for privacy. In addition, Rep Goodlatte said that "Government bodies and citizens should use more encryption, not less, to increase security on the Internet."

But just because the enemy uses cryptography against us does not mean that free people shouldn't. To limit the American people from secure privacy is to draw a line between the Federal Government and the citizen. Key Escrow boils down to the questioning of American loyalty and the act of associating the citizen with the terrorists.

Security & Privacy In A Free Society