1994 Congressional Hearings
Intelligence and Security

Testimony before the
Committee on Science, Space and Technology
Subcommittee on Technology, Environment and Aviation
U.S. House of Representatives 


Hearing on
Communications and Computer Surveillance, Privacy and Security 


May 3, 1994 


David J. Farber
The Alfred Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunication Systems
University of Pennsylvania
200 S. 33 rd Street
Philadelphia PA 19104-6389
Net: farber@cis.upenn.edu 


I.      Introduction 


Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I want to thank
the Committee for inviting me to testify today. 


I should start off by stating that the views I will give are my own, and
not necessarily those of any organizations that I am affiliated with --
although I hope they agree with my views. I am speaking merely as a
professional with long experience in the computer and communications
field. 


My background has been focused on the understanding of and the development
of technology in the computer and communications area. I started my career
in 1956 with a BS in General Engineering from Stevens Institute of
Technology. Due to the influence of a friend, I interviewed Bell Telephone
Laboratories even though I was accepted into graduate school. I accepted a
very challenging job at Bell Labs helping design the worlds first
electronic switching system which was later installed at Morris,
Illinois. It was the ENIAC of the computer-based telephone systems we have
today. I later went on to do pioneer work in programming languages and
after a period at the RAND Corp. I left industry to join the University of
California at Irvine (UCI) as a faculty member. At UCI I was responsible
for the conceptualization of the first operational distributed computer
system sponsored by the NSF -- the DCS system which was the first use of
client-server ideas, along with the first micro kernel and the first
ring-type Local Area Network. On my journey to the University of
Pennsylvania where I hold the Chair of The Alfred Fitler Moore Professor
of Telecommunication Systems, I collaborated in the creation and operation
of CSNET and the NREN as well as co-authoring the  proposal for the
Gigabit Testbeds. I have served on more industrial and government advisory
committees than is reasonable and am a Fellow of the IEEE. I serve on the
Board of Trustees of both the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the
Internet Society. 


My career has been focused on the understanding of, and the development
of, technology in the communications area. I have co-founded several of
the data networks which have led to the National Information
Infrastructure and have taken part in the creation of some of the
technology that makes it possible. For the last several years I have also
been increasingly involved with the policy problems and opportunities
that this technology has created. So while my remarks will focus largely
on the technical aspects of the Clipper and the Digital  Telephony
initiatives I would like to start out by expressing some of my views on
policy and also my views as a concerned citizen. 


II.     Public Policy Challenges Posed By New Information & Communication
Technologies 


We are at a critical stage in the evolution of a capability that could
rival the industrial revolution in bringing both  good and bad to the
citizens of this nation. The industrial revolution brought unheard of
prosperity to parts of the world and pain and suffering also. The
information revolution, and it is a revolution, can bring a burst of
prosperity and vigor to a world which is increasingly stuck in a morass of
slow growth, regionalization and trade conflicts. 


The information revolution is a stew based on a blend made possible by
increasingly complex communications technology mixed with increasingly
more powerful computers. The National Information Infrastructure (NII) and
it's sister the Global Information  Infrastructure (GII) are among the
exciting developments arising out of this technology "stew". All in all,
we have an unprecedented transfer of power into the hands of the public
and the government that results from these technologies. Computer power
that served the entire technical staff of Bell Labs when I was there is
now available in my hand. Communications capabilities only dreamed of in
the Saturday movie serials is now readily available worldwide. This vastly
increased power in the hands of the public has created difficulties for
the policy makers. While technology increases in power at a rate of two
times per year, our ability to understand the policy  implications of
this, sadly, grows very slowly. 


This has shown itself recently in the debate about the Clipper encryption
initiative and the Digital Telephony proposals both put forward by the
Clinton/Gore administration and backed heavily by the law enforcement
community. A careful look at each of these initiatives illuminates the
fundamental national issues that are being fought out. 


It is critical that this discussion be brought out into that part of the
policymaking process which has always represented the citizens -- the
Congress.  I take as one of my guidelines in thinking about these issues,
a quote by Ben Franklin -- the Founder of the University I am at -- "They
that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." 


A.      Clipper and the proposed escrow system 


The proposed key escrow system that is part of the "Clipper" proposal for
providing securable telephony has been subject to many and often loud
debates in the press and in the Internet world. Many worry that such an
escrow system could be vulnerable to misuse by a future administration or
overzealous law enforcement organizations.  The result of any such misuse
would be a major blow to the privacy rights of our citizens. The
counter-argument is based on arguments that it is no worse than we now
have -- namely no cryptographic protection in widespread use, and a fear
of increasing difficulties due to technology and the ease of computer
supported voice encryption. Clearly the issues are basic to the way we
will live in the future that is, what will happen to both our liberty and
our safety. Currently the discussants have taken extreme positions -- as
is normal for the beginning of such a critical discussion. Neither side is
capable of explaining to the other the reasons for their support of or
concerns about the proposal. 


Thus I believe that we must carefully examine the proposed escrow system
to insure that we have not done the trade that Franklin warned us about,
but rather, that we have used all available technology to ensure that we
end up with more safety and more liberty. 


The Administration's Clipper proposal to create an escrowed cryptographic
system for  telephony came out of the blue, at least as far as my
community is concerned. When I sent out the first announcement of the
Clipper proposal to my "interesting people" mailing list (a list that goes
widely to senior people in academia, government and industry) my only
comment was "basically the issue is 'do you trust your government'". One
of the replies I received from a 23 year old person I know well said that
"to my generation, the term 'trust government' has no meaning". Sad but
true!!. 


The Clipper announcement was sketchy, lacking substance and real form. We
all "waited for the beef" but there was unfortunately no such beef. The
main ingredient of the initiative and it's most controversial aspect --
the escrow system -- was not yet really designed. The reaction was, to put
it mildly, mostly shock and outrage and even sadness. There were
insufficient details about the Clipper system to enable us to make a
competent technical evaluation of the overall security of the proposal,
including all of its escrow management procedures. Those of us in industry
and in academe, see our role as helping to assess for both the corporate
community and individual users, the security and privacy of computer and
communications systems. To this date, we have been unable to perform this
function because most of the details of Clipper are shrouded in secrecy. 


B.      Where are we and where can we go 


One of the facts of life in the Information Age is that powerful tools
such as encryption are and will be increasingly more available to
law-abiding citizens, business users, people all over the world, and, of
course, to criminals.  This does pose challenges to law enforcement, but
there's nothing we can do to stop this technology.  All that the
government can do is to slow things down.  We have to face it. Perhaps we
can slow it down and leave it to our children to face these facts of life.
But in my view we have created the world that presents these challenges
and we should attempt to solve the problems and to leave a better world to
our children. 


We should not, however, underestimate the depth of the problem that
sophisticated encryption technology and the information age thrusts upon
us.  On the one hand, individual citizens and large corporations
desperately need encryption to protect their personal privacy and
corporate security.  On the other hand, this same technology, if used by
criminals, can make law enforcements efforts to conduct investigations
more difficult.  So, we need technology and public policy in response to
this dilemma which assure privacy and security, enables law enforcement to
continue to do its job, and, at the same time, respects fundamental civil
liberties which are at the heart of our constitutional system of
government. In my technical judgment, the solution to this problem will
not come easily and will certainly not come in one simple step. 


The position of the Administration worries many in the technical community
since they feel it is but the first step to the banning of any form of
encryption except that approved and escrowed by the government. The
Clinton Administration says "not on our watch" and I believe them.
However, our grandchildren will not have them on the watch when they grow
up. So, we need a lasting and effective solution to this problem, not a
quick fix that is technologically unsound and unwise as a matter of public
policy. 


C.      Open Technical Processes Are Best For Solving Hard Problems 


Even those of us who disagee about Clipper, agree that we are faced with a
hard technical and policy problem.  So, the question we should be asking
is: how does the communications world solve hard problems and are we on
track with Clipper? A long history of setting technical standards in the
communications industry has shown that solving hard technical problems
requires an open design process.  The protocols which are the basis of the
Internet were not created by ten people in a "smoke-filled room". They
evolved openly and sometimes noisily in a highly stressed and highly
productive set of interactions. They took over the world and created the
basis for the National Information Infrastructure. An examination of the
internet standards activity clearly shows the payoff in openness. 


The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), an open organization attended
by all the players with stakes in internet developments, has often faced
the situation where two group develop their ideas in different fashions:
One group meets in an open public fashion, with constant interactions with
different ideas and different economic imperatives of those
participating.   Another group goes off and sits in  smoke-filled rooms
designing alternatives in a closed environment. When both are shown to the
IETF as a whole, the open design always wins. It has all the rough spots
smoothed out and arguments done prior to disclosure. The closed design
gets sunk on having to do the smoothing when it is too late. Multimedia
Mail, a major future use of the NII, is a good case in point. There are
many others examples. 


Clipper is in the same boat. While I recognize that a small part of
cryptography will always be classified, most of the development of the
proposed escrow system has been taking place in those room ( not
smoke-filled any more). This process must be brought out into the sunshine
of the technical and policy community. Proposals like Clipper must be
evolved, if they are to have any chance of success, with the co-operation
and understanding of the industrial and academic community and their
enthusiastic cooperation rather than their mistrust. This penchant for
openness must not be seen as a power struggle between industry and
government, or as an excuse for revisiting a decision that technologists
dislike for political reasons.  Rather it is a reflection of a deep faith
in open design processes and a recognition that closed processes
invariably lead to solutions which are too narrow and don't last. 


A Strawman Proposal 


To make my thinking more concrete I have included  a much abbreviated
design that  is predicated on a desire to properly control and
authenticate the use of taps and decryption devices to ensure their use
only under proper judicial supervision. It is intended to provide a
greatly improved and protected mechanism to ensure that proper judicial
control is kept and that auditable records exist. I personally believe
there are technical safeguards that can be engineered into a key escrow
system that could greatly increase privacy and security for users, while
ensuring that legitimate law enforcement access is maintained. 


The approach requires a change in the warrant mechanism as well as other
changes that may require legislative action.  I firmly believe that an
approach toward the creation of a freely exportable cryptographic system
that allows and perhaps even encourages, but does not demand, escrowed
keys could, given the right actions on the part of the congress greatly
improve the first amendment rights and the custom of personal privacy that
exists in the United States and at the same time provide law enforcement
with all the lawful access to crypto protected communications that our
constitution allows. 


The proposed design allows the user of an escrowed crypto-device (ECD) to
choose to have his keys escrowed with a set of escrow approved  holding
organizations (EAHO). An EAHO must conform to a set of rules and audits
that define its proper handling of key security, physical and electronic
security, management strength, and the ability to obtain a bond to protect
the owners of the ECD from illegal actions on the part of EAHO employees.
Thus the credibility of the EAHO is examined by the accrediting agency and
the organization which provides bonding. 


Given that the component keys (CK) have been transported to the chosen
EAHOs, the rest of this note describes the process that would be followed
in my proposed approach. 


When a law enforcement organization (LEO) wants to decrypt a protected
conversation, it go through the normal mechanism to find the ECD units
being used. The main difference from the existing process is that the
warrant they must obtain in order for the EAHOs to release their component
keys is as follows. 


The LEO obtains a warrant from a judicial source. This warrant is
registered as to the date of issue (could use the Bellcore spin-off
company) and contains within the warrant the specifics of ECD that will be
monitored as well as the length of time of thevalidity of the
authorization. The warrant is electronic in form and is then encrypted and
signed by the judicial source. It is sent to the LEO. The LEO then sends
the warrant along with its additional information to each of the escrow
organizations -- this transmission signed by the LEO. The EAHOs check the
validity of the LEO, and decrypt the warrant for validity, date and
duration. Given this is OK, it sends its part of the key along with the
original warrant back to the LEO encrypted under the LEO's public key and
signed by the EAHO. 


The LEO now can authenticate the EAHO. When the LEO has all parts of the
component keys, it ships the messages obtained from the EAHOs -- namely
the key parts and the warrant to the decryption "box" where the validity
of the warrant, its time of origination and length is again checked before
any decryption taking place. If any of these conditions fail, the request
for decryption is rejected. 


This alternative to Clipper will protect user privacy, ensure legitimate
law enforcement access, and has the important advantage of allowing
technology and standards to develop in an open, market-drive process. 


I would note, too, that the Clinton Administration has shown some interest
in pursuing open solutions such as the one I have outlined here.  This
sentiment is extremely encouraging to me and I would urge the subcommittee
to explore this option further with Administration officials.1 


D.      What's my bottom line on Clipper 


Escrow key systems may offer a middle of the road solution to blend the
imperatives of technology with the stated but as yet un-substantiated
needs of law enforcement. However, in no case, should an escrow system be
considered unless it: 


* results in an environment which considerable increases the citizens
protection against illegal wiretaps 


and 


* provides for enabling laws, which would be necessary to establish the
electronic warrant system and auditability, must legislate against the
mandatory use of clipper technology 


and 


* removes export controls  on cryptography so as to establish a viable
market for American companies to produce products. 


III. Digital Telephony 


I will enumerate my objections to the proposal from a technical/economic
point of view. I join others in attacking it from a
privacy/freedom/necessity standpoint. 


In the Clipper controversy, one could find some benefits to the nation in
a properly designed system. In the case of the Digital Telephony proposal
it is difficult to see where there can be a silver lining. 


The Digital Telephony proposal calls for the manufacturers of telephone
central office switches, tandom switches and SS7 signaling systems to make
major design changes to their software systems. These changes would
provide, to law enforcement at remote sites, electronic notification of
calls to and from selected numbers/individuals as the individuals wander
through the complex communications structure that has been created in the
United States. 


I, and many others, expect that the law would have to be extended to cover
PBXs and even personal computers as they are used more and more as
personal communications devices. 


As a colleague of mine has often said "What guarantees that the job of law
enforcement should be easy?". Yet law enforcement noting the increased
complexity of the telecommunications systems and maybe even noticing the
ability of all the components of the NII to carry such communications, has
demanded the right to peek into our minds and to easily find out whom we
call and who calls us. 


I have often been credited with using the term "the Full Software
Employment Act of 1994" when I talk about the Digital Telephony proposal.
The proposers talk about costs in the multi hundreds of millions of
dollars to be borne by the Government for the first three years. After
that all is left open. 


As one who has in his time designed and built complex systems and who
understands the structure of the current telecommunications structure my
reactions are as follows. 


Rational estimates obtained from sources in the industry talk about
numbers from $1.5 to $3 billion  per year. I consider that low. The
complexity of just the Plain Old Telephone System software is enormous.
Re-designing large and often the most complex parts of it will not be easy
nor inexpensive. One must potentially re-engineer the cellular system with
its multiple manufacturers plus the local and toll and tandem switching
centers. The fact that they are programmed devices makes it feasible but
not cheap.  The potential for decreased reliability of the national
telephone grid caused by the large scale changes (presently undefined)  to
the software architecture could cause major dangers to the health and
economy of the country. If you watch the bugs (errors) that are
distributed in well tested and much similar systems (like DOS or MACOS)
you can appreciate the opportunities for chaos -- and it must be done in
three years. 


One should carefully note that the national communications system is
marginally reliable at this time. A National Research Council report on it
cautioned that it was poorly equipped to survive in the event of
catastrophies. The recent set of fiber cuts and the resultant severe
disruption of the nation's business is a portent for the future. To spend
money that is in short supply satisfying a poorly articulated and poorly
justified "problem" with wire tapping is to place the nation's economic
health in danger, for communication is the veins that carry the nation's
economic blood -- information. 


>From the standpoint of the future evolution of our NII, the Digital
Telephony proposal presents a major drag. Whenever a new feature is being
considered for implementation and marketing, one very important issue will
be how much  it will cost to implement it in such a manner as to pass the
hurdles of the proposal. That could price many good ideas that would
improve the usefulness of our NII off the feasibility horizon. Not only
would our citizens not have access to these new and useful services but
they would not be implemented in US manufactured systems and thus could
make our systems less sellable in competition with those of foreign
manufacturers of communications equipment for off shore sales. Note that
off shore sales in the developing parts of the globe represent major
markets which we could lose. 


IV. Summary 


*       The Information Age poses hard problems for privacy protection,
security and law enforcement 


*       Increasing amounts of personally sensitive and proprietary information
on global, digital networks creates need for security through encryption. 


*       Technical knowledge of how to create powerful and practically
unbreakable encryption technology is available throughout the world. 


*       Powerful encryption poses real challenges for law enforcement and
national security efforts. 


*       These challenges will not be solved by just a single chip such as
Clipper or even just a single legislative act such as the proposed Digital
Telephony bill. 


*       As a closed, secret, inflexible standard, Clipper will not be widely
accepted by the market 


*       Security systems must be trusted by the broad user community.  Clipper
will never be so trusted because the design of its internal algorithm is
secret 


*       Open systems are the only lasting solution to hard technical problems 


*       The history of the computer and communications industry has shown that
hard technical problems require open flexible solutions arrived at in an
open manner. 


*       The federal government should lead the way toward an open solution,
rather than trying in vain to force a closed solution on the problem. 


*       Real alternative to publicly revealed Clipper system design exist,
which meet law enforcement goals while protecting privacy, civil liberties and
preserving technological flexibility. 


V. Conclusion 


There should be no doubt that new computer and communciations
technologies pose challenges for the law enforcement and national security
communities.  By the same token, for the National Information
Infrastructure to succeed, and for US companies to be able to compete in
the world market -- the Global Information Infrastructure -- user security
and privacy must be protected through robust, open cryptography standards.
The Congress and the Administration should lead the way toward solutions
that are open, provide for flexibility in the future, and seek an
appropriate balance of individual privacy and the legitimate needs of law
enforcement. I thank this subcommittee again for its foresight and
guidance in holding this hearing and look forward to working with you in
the future. 


FOOTNOTE 


1 I would like to explicitly support an idea originated by Steve Walker of
Trusted Information Systems, who proposes the voluntary establishment of
software interface standards to crypto devices and crypto software so that
manufacturers around the world, but especially in the United States, can
create software systems that can be used with nationally required crypto
systems around the world. Such an initiative would greatly enhance the
privacy of individuals and the market for such systems. It would also
create a major opportunity for American companies to market to the world.
Such an initiative would assist in the creation of the GII supported by
the Vice President