    





    go on record about th~s sensitive matter.
    
    "There is a very real and critical danger that
    uarestr~ned public discussion of cryptologic mat-
    ters will senously damage the ability of th~s govern-
    ment to conduct signals intelligence and protect na-
    tional secunty informat~on from hostile explo~ta-
    tion," he complained. "The very real concerns we
    at NSA have about the impact of nongovernmental
    cryptologic activity cannot and should not be ig-
    nored. Ultimately these concerns are of vital in-
    terest to every citizen of the United States, since
    they bear vitally on our national defense and the
    successful conduct of our foreign policy.?'
    
    Another NSA employee, Joseph A. Meyer, has
    warned his colleagues in tl~e Institute of Electrical
    and Electronic Engineers that the~r wor1c on public-
    key crYntography and data encrspt~on might violate
    
    .__,~ _-"~-Ä~- r--~ ~
    
    the International Traffic in Anus regulation. Th~s
    law, which the goverament uses to control the ex-
    port of weapoary and computer equipment, can
    even be invoked to thwart basic code research.
    
    As a result, poople like University of Wisconsin
    computer-science professor George DaVida, who
    recently tried to patent a new cryptographic device,
    have run into trouble. Although his work was spon-
    sored by the federally funded National Science
    Fonndation, the Commerce Department told
    DaVida that he could be arrested for writing about,
    or discussing, the principles of his invention. A
    similar secrecy order was issued $o a Seattle team
    that had invested $33,000to develop a coding device
    for CB and marine rad~os.
    
    _-
    
    . ~
    . ~
    
    .
    
    e~
    
    ~ _:
    
    _ --,~
    
    Protests from the scientific community per-
    suaded the government to lift its secrecy orders in
    both these cases. At least for now, academics and
    inventors can continue to write and confer on cryp-
    tographic schemes. But the threat of renewed gov-
    ernment harassment has complicated further
    research. Universities have agreed to defend pro-
    fessors against federal prosecution related to code
    research, but they can't protect students. As a
    result, some students have decided not to contribute
    papers to scient~fic conferences. In at least one in-
    stance Hellman had to shield two of h~s graduate
    students at Stanford by reading their reports for
    them at a meeting of the Institute of Electrical and
    Electron~c Engineers.
    
    It's too soon to know whether the goveroment
    will move to block the use of the public key, but
    Hellman and his colleagues [ear that young cryp-
    tographers may be scared away by Inman's tough
    admonitions. This could hold up the practical re-
    finements necessary to make the unbreakable code
    widely available. A real chance to stop cr~me in the
    electronic society might be postponed indefin~tely.
    With computerwed theft increasing every year and
    computers controlling more of society's daily ac-
    tivities, this doesn't seem wise. But this issue ap-
    pears secondary to Wash~ngton cryptographers,
    who sound as ~f they would like to reserve the public
    key for their own use.
    
    "I'm not suggesting government agents want to
    listen in at w~ll," Diffie says, "but I'm sure they
    don't want to be shnt out. For them the perfect code
    is the one only they can break."
    
    -
    
    _ . = = . _ =
    
 ~_ L'r~der--ater signaling s~stem ernpioyrd by'
    sn~uyglers "orking off >'ew York cosst. ,1a-
    
 ~Ä g~e-ium ilare (U) warned li~te~in~ craft of
    m~age aL~out to Le transmitted.
    
    , = =~= === ~ 5~ _ _= ~
    
    __ F~= ~F ;:=
    
    [ -
    
                                   U _, ,:
    
          ~Ä   _e~_     --
    
    