[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Page 16990]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                              PROTECT ACT

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue of 
increasing national and international importance.
  Mr. President, encryption may not yet be the most common term in the 
American lexicon, but it may well affect every American as we progress 
in this Information Age. Encryption systems provide security to 
conventional and cellular telephone conversation, fax transmissions, 
local and wide area networks, personal computers, remote key entry 
systems, and radio frequency communication systems. As we become more 
reliant on these technologies, encryption becomes a more important 
application.
  For these and other reasons, I come to the floor today to discuss my 
decision to cosponsor S. 798, the Promote Reliable Online Transactions 
to Encourage Commerce and Trade, or PROTECT Act. This bill pushes us 
toward a thoughtful debate on encryption policy.
  I appreciate the efforts of the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, 
Senator McCain, to push this important legislation forward. As the 
chairman knows all too well, balancing competing interests, regardless 
of issue, is a difficult, and often thankless, job. In this case, we 
must find an equitable balance between personal privacy, technological 
innovation and public safety.
  The rapidly expanding global marketplace and our increasing reliance 
on new technology has resulted in the almost instantaneous transfer of 
consumer information. Bank information, medical records, and credit 
card purchases are transferred at lightning speed. But these 
transactions, and even browsing on the Internet, can leave consumers 
vulnerable to unwanted and illegal access to private information. 
Encryption technology offers an effective way consumers can ensure that 
only the people they choose can read other communications or their e-
mail, review their medical records, or take money out of their bank 
accounts. Plain and simple, encryption products protect consumers.
  Over the past couple of years, we have seen the power of Internet 
commerce. From amazon.com to eBay to drugstore.com, companies with a 
dot com have become the darlings of the investment world. For 
consumers, online commerce provides viable competition and, thus, a 
cost-effective alternative to traditional brick-and-mortar stores.
  The Internet, however, will never achieve its full potential as a 
center of commerce if consumers do not trust that their transactions 
and communications remain confidential. If we ever are to realize the 
commercial and communications potential of the Internet, we must have 
sophisticated and effective encryption.
  For these precise reasons, consumers have an economic interest in the 
use of strong encryption technology. That economic interest 
necessitates more research and more development of stronger technology. 
The current export control climate, however, stifles development of 
domestic encryption technology. I believe that expansion of the market 
for U.S. developers will serve to quicken the pace of innovation.
  Two recent reports bear this out. The Electronic Privacy Information 
Center found that the United States is virtually alone in its 
restrictions on encryption. Another report by researchers at George 
Washington University found that 35 foreign countries manufacture 805 
encryption products. The same GWU report found that of the 15 
algorithms now being considered by the National Institute of Standards 
for a new American encryption standard, 10 have been developed outside 
the U.S. Clearly, our outdated policies are doing more to exclude U.S. 
manufacturers from the marketplace than they are doing to keep 
encryption technology out of the hands of criminals.
  I do not mean to belittle the serious law enforcement implications of 
encryption. As the FBI has stated, ``encryption has been used to 
conceal criminal activity and thwart law enforcement efforts to collect 
critical evidence needed to solve serious and often violent criminal 
activities.'' The same technology that prevents a computer hacker from 
stealing one's credit card number can prevent a law enforcement 
officer, even one with a properly obtained court order, from decrypting 
illegal information.
  But the fact of the matter is that criminals simply can purchase and 
use an advanced encryption product produced in a foreign country. I 
understand concerns that some in the law enforcement community may 
have. Muzzling American development and export, however, is a doomed 
strategy. I believe there should be criminal penalties for those that 
use encryption in the furtherance of a crime and I hope the Senate will 
adopt penalties similar to those found in the leading House encryption 
bill.
  Mr. President, there is no question that this bill moves us forward, 
both in terms of privacy and technological innovation. I must point 
out, however, that my support for this bill will not preclude me from 
advocating a stronger privacy position in the future. My cosponsorship 
of this bill establishes what I believe should be the starting point 
for the Congress to begin the encryption debate. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues on this very important issue.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________