--- begin forwarded text Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 18:09:20 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: FC: Armey asks for Fidnet privacy reassurances from Janet Reno Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ********** >December 6, 1999 >The Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General >US Department of Justice >950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW >Washington, DC 20530-0001 > >Dear Attorney General Reno, > > On September 27, I wrote to you seeking clarification of the >Administration's policies regarding online privacy - specifically as related >to encryption export controls and federal monitoring of online networks. >Although I had asked for a response by October 15, I have still not received >any answers to my questions. > >I have seen, however, the draft regulations released by the U.S. Department >of Commerce on November 24. Unfortunately, they seem to fall short of the >rhetoric employed when the new Administration position was announced. The >rules seem overly prescriptive and excessively bureaucratic. Since these >are only draft regulations, however, I am willing to reserve judgement until >the rules are final. I urge you to take another look at the provisions of >HR 850, the SAFE Act, when crafting the final version - the bill has >overwhelming bipartisan support and was scheduled for floor action when the >Administration announced it's reversal on encryption export policy. > >Online privacy issues, like encryption, need to be handled in an open and >straightforward manner. As this Christmas shopping season has demonstrated, >e-commerce is here to stay, but it will only continue to flourish if >consumers have confidence that their online transactions are secure. The >Administration cannot continue to unveil important online policy changes >without adequate public vetting and explanation. A failure to communicate >can lead to a lack of confidence in the online environment. > >This is particularly true with regard to network security issues. FIDNet, >and other related computer network monitoring proposals, have raised many >concerns about the federal government "cybersnooping" on online >transactions. While I share the Administration's goal of protecting >government computer networks from outside intruders, there are serious >policy questions about how best to achieve security in a way that protects >personal privacy. > >The few answers that have been forthcoming are often vague and even >contradictory. For example, your September 24 letter states "As envisioned, >FIDNet is being designed to monitor federal executive branch computer >networks for intrusions, not private networks or the Internet in general." >Yet National Journal's Tech Daily reported on October 20 that "The >Department of Justice is cultivating controversial plans to avoid or repeal >portions of the Freedom of Information Act because of concerns the law might >keep businesses from playing a crucial role in the Clinton Administration's >computer network security plans." > >Is this article accurate? If there is no private sector role in the >"National Plan," why would FOIA have to be waived? Or was your answer to my >initial letter simply that FIDNet itself is not designed to monitor private >networks, but that other components of the Administration's network security >plan will involve private networks? > >I feel very strongly that Congress should not authorize or appropriate any >funds to implement the "National Plan," until the details of the plan are >carefully scrutinized and debated by the Congress and the public at-large. >Congress will not put the confidence of the American people in their online >transactions at risk by prematurely supporting a plan that has not yet seen >the light of day. I hope you will take this opportunity to reassure the >public that there is no Administration effort to invade personal privacy >before releasing the "National Plan" later this year. > >The American people will not simply "trust" that the Justice Department, >which allowed 900 FBI files containing personal information about American >citizens to be released into unauthorized hands (i.e. Craig Livingstone), >will be more careful with their online privacy. > >People are very interested in preserving their personal security online. >The future of e-commerce depends on it. I urge you to work with Congress to >bring these important Internet privacy issues to the forefront where they >can be openly discussed and debated before the public. I am certain that >the Administration shares our commitment to online privacy. Please take >this opportunity to demonstrate it by providing more clarity and light to >the encryption export rules and the FIDNet proposals. > > Sincerely, > > > > DICK ARMEY > House Majority Leader > >Cc: Secretary of Commerce, William M. Daley >Secretary of Defense, William S. Cohen > National Security Adviser, Samuel R. Berger >Chief Counselor for Privacy at OMB, Peter Swire -------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- end forwarded text ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
