What is the Clipper Chip Initiative?

11900 Metric Blvd J-181
Austin Texas 78758-3117
(512) 837-9345
pelliott@BlackPatchPanel.com

The following was published in the June 1994 issue of HAL PC Journal. This is dated material. Some statements may not be up to date.


Encryption is a method of scrambling messages and files to keep them private. Governments and corporations have used encryption from time immemorial, but recently strong encryption has become available to individuals. Phil Zimmermann's freeware program Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) (available almost anywhere) provides a convenient way for individuals to encrypt and decrypt messages and files. Voice scramblers have existed for a long time, but in the past, analog scramblers were not cryptographically strong. That is, if a government or a corporation really wanted to overhear your scrambled speech, it could do so. Now, technology has advanced to the point that strong encryption of voice communications is becoming feasible at a price which will be affordable for the masses.

The Clipper Chip Initiative is the "Escrowed Encryption Standard" which has been proposed as a standard for encrypted voice communications by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This as a standard for a hardware chip which was designed by the National Security Agency (NSA) for NIST. This design was probably done illegally because the Computer Security Act of 1987 explicitly gives NIST the responsibility for standards-making for the unclassified governmental and commercial sectors. In NSA internal documents, the chip was originally called the "trapdoor" chip.

The plan features "key escrow," an arrangement whereby the government keeps the keys to decrypt all the information encrypted by any of the chips and then promises not to use them without legal authorization.

The administration plans to implement the Clipper proposal entirely using authority that it believes it already has. It does not plan to get Congress to pass any new laws in implementing the Clipper standard. This is why the proposal is called the "Clipper Chip Initiative" rather than the "Clipper Chip Act". This is necessary because it is not clear that any Clipper proposal could pass Congressional muster. Last year the "Digital Telephony Act" went down in flames when it could not find even one Congress-person willing to sponsor it. (The "Digital Telephony Act" is the FBI's proposal to have the phone companies tap everyone's phone for the FBI with the cost being born by the people that pay phone bills. Of course, the FBI promises not to use this ability to record phone conversations without a proper court order.)

The Clipper Chip is Bad Business.

The Clipper Chip is a bad business decision for several reasons:

Political Analysis

Why does the Clinton Administration support the Clipper Chip Initiative at the same time that the supposedly "right wing" Rush Limbaugh opposes it? Do not most ACLU members vote Democratic? Is it not supposed to be the "right-wingers" that want to limit our civil liberties? Is down up? Is up down? Are dogs and cats going to start living together? What can explain this astounding political reversal? It is possible to account for Rush's position. Rush has been forced to take an interest in First Amendment issues because of the proposed revival of the "Fairness Act" which has been viewed as covert way to flush Rush. Also, Rush is a Republican. The Democrats control both the Legislative and Executive branches of government. The Clipper Chip Initiative proposes to increase government power in a way that could be used against Republicans. Certainly, it would be more difficult for Rush to oppose the Clipper Chip if George Bush was still proposing it. It is more difficult to explain the position of the Clinton Administration. Al Gore likes to talk about the administration's proposals for the Information Superhighway, but he seems very uncomfortable when discussing the Clipper Chip. A standard whose sole raison d'etre is to enable the government to tap everyone's phones seems positively Nixonesqe. Politicians may pay lip-service to civil liberties when addressing the ACLU, but their own true agenda is their own personal power and advancement. As government continues to demand more and more control over people's lives, more draconian methods must be used to meet resistance. The Democratic Party's nominal support for civil liberties may be only "boob bait for the Bubbas" in the inspiring words of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

There is another possible explanation for the position of the Clinton administration. The intelligence agencies like to tap people's phones, but they also love to bug people's bedrooms. Perhaps the Clinton administration finds itself in a position in which it has no choice but to agree to the requests of the intelligence agencies.