Mr. Novak's Monday, June 28th article on encryption versus the FBI and the DEA is quite misleading, and I would like to set the record straight. 1. The issue floating in Congress is about export of encryption technology, not domestic use. Domestic production and use is and has always been unrestricted. Of course, the FBI and the NSA have been desperately trying to attach domestic restrictions of various flavors ("key escrow", "key recovery", outright bans, licensing, etc ...) to any bill they can, but so far have not succeeded. 2. Mr. Novak's rhetoric claims that this is some rich kid trying to get even richer at the expense of the safety of poor grandma's in ghetto neighborhoods. In fact, this is has never been Bill Gate's cause. a. This is the cause of many programmers who feel that they should not be subject to multi-million dollar fines and years in jail just because they communicate to each other in everyday programming languages. Musicians certainly aren't subject to national security export control when they exchange sheet music. Chef's aren't subject to national security export control when they exchange dessert recipes. Why must programmers be subject to export control when they exchange programs? (This is a First Amendment issue.) b. This is also the cause of human rights activists who are trying desperately to bring democracy to such countries as China, North Korean, Peru, etc. Encryption provides protection against government who do not respect human rights. c. Furthermore, there are activists opposing the current and many of the proposed expansions of global surveillence systems such as Echelon. What is clear is that the NSA and its counter parts in the UKUSA agreement, has long been out of the reach of Congressional oversight committees, and has operated with impunity. 1) Mr Novak should ask himself why the NSA is the first government agency ever to invoke attorney-client priviledges when recently asked by its Congressional oversight committees to disclose its intercept practices for review. 2) In addition, Mr Novak should ask himself why is it that every time someone proposes a law prohibitting foreign spies from spying here, the NSA has lobbied to kill the bill. Isn't one of NSA's mandates to protect Americans from being spied upon? d. Lastly, there is no guarantee anywhere that says law enforcement is entitled to understand what you say over phones or the Internet. Otherwise, Navajo would be outlawed. Technical jargons would be outlawed. Truth would be mandated; violations would be punishable by criminal penalties. Should humor be licensed? I seriously doubt Mr. Novak is ready to ask Congress to legislate truth. (This is also a First Amendment issue.) In short, it might have been convenient for Bill Gates to pick it up to win some brownie points with the rest of the industry, and it might make some business sense to the Microsoft empire, but just as Al Gore did not invent the Internet, nor did Bill Gates start the crypto freedom movement. 2. Export restrictions, on its face, do not stop any of the stereo type "bad guys" from keeping their data secret. Just ask any scientist, mathematician or programmer whether the current export regulations make sense, and you will find that almost no one believes it can do what the government claims it does; that is, prevent terrorists, pedophiles and drug dealers from using encryption the government cannot decode. Remember, the current status quo is extremely strict export control; we have always had much stricter than export control in most other countries. And yet, none of this has prevented terrorists from encrypting their files. 3. Most other countries did not care about encryption until the US forced them to sign and abide by Wassenaar and related treaties and conventions. Canada is in the midst of being pressured to shut its borders on encryption exports. Just watch. All this hoopla over the launch of a spy-quality satellite will end up squeezing the encryption software developers in Canada. Japan did not care about encryption exports until a Japanese company opening advertised that it has developed an RSA encryption chip. Suddenly, everything quieted, and it became really difficult to get an export permit in Japan. What is clear is that the US is the quiet hand forcing the issue behind the scenes. Look at ILETS and EU's recently adopted Enfopol proposal. How much public comments from the Europeans were received on this? Zero. How many ministers voted on this issue? None. Who was directing this? The NSA (as well as members of the GCHQ from UK.) FOIA'ed documents prove that law enforcement has nothing to do with this. They are just used as the PR front because the NSA needs lots of legitimate bogeymen now that the Cold War is over. What is clear from all of this is that the NSA is trying desperately to not only protect but EXPAND its technical intercept capabilities. In addition, they are looking to legalize a massive invasion of privacy which no democratic country would openly embrace. Despite the fact that simple encryption is quickly and easily turning their multi-billion dollar Echelon network into a useless junk heap, the NSA is still trying to make this decades-old concept work for them. Many administration officials have admitted as much that this is the ultimate desperate attempt to salvage a technology which the NSA has sunk way too much resources into, and that their business of raw communications intercepts will pretty much be over by the end of the next decade. Instead, what Mr. Novak appears to be advocating is that we deliberately weaken the information infrastructure of tomorrow to save yesterday's spy technology. If he really buys what the FBI and the NSA is spoon-feeding him, how about something even more important and closer to home ... What would Mr. Novak say if the FBI were to ask everyone here and in Europe to plant cameras in every neighborhood street corner? How about, in every room in their houses? Oh, and, of course, these would ONLY be used with legally authorized court orders. You certainly wouldn't want your lil' Suzy and Johnny be molested by anyone? Would you? What was that statistic? That over 60% of all child abuse occurs within the homes of the victims, committed by people the victims trusted? THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN AT RISK!!! WE MUST SAVE OUR CHILDREN!!! So what do you say, Mr. Novak? -------- Ernest Hua, TeraLogic Inc, Mountain View, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED], (650) 526-6064