dition to a Fourth Amendment violation, it is argued that the First Amendment would also be violated by proposals such as the Clipper Chip. In the case Daniel J. Berstein v. United States Department of State, encryption was accepted as a form of language and ordered protection by the First Amendment. Other cases establish First Amendment protection for forms of communication such as technical information, music, and flag burning. “If technical information, music, and languages are considered speech and subject to First Amendment protection, so too then must encrypted messages containing elements of communication be speech,” (Huffman 4). Does the Clinton Administration not find the First and Fourth Amendments significant? It is the Governments responsibility to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens. Perhaps it is not that the Amendments are not significant, but social welfare is of much more significance. In addition to protecting constitutional rights, the Government is responsible for protecting society.The government argues that a violation of these rights is acceptable and necessary to protect the general public from harm. In “US Cryptography Policy: Why We Are Taking the Current Approach,” the NIST reports, . . . there is a growing recognition, affirmed most recently by the National Academy of Sciences that the use of encryption to conceal illegitimate activities ‘poses a problem for society as a whole, not just for law enforcement and national security.’ In brief, criminals can use encryption to frustrate legal wiretaps and render useless search warrants for stored electronic data (NIST 1).Currently, the “bad guy” is one step ahead of the “good guy.” Encryption has interfered with the prosecution of child pornographers. “Aldrich Ames was instructed by Soviet handlers to encrypt computer files that he passed to the Soviet,” (NIST 1). It is obvious so...
