nsa digital cash?

ok, so the nsa looked at commercial cryptography and said, `we need to control 
it'.  and out pops clipper (quite an ugly baby, eh?)

this makes me wonder. i bet that they see that announcement by visa for 
`digital cash' and go crazy. they are already thinking of how to put clipper 
into a nationwide digital cash system, don't you think?

this brings up some serious issues. i doubt it will be long before there
are some official government agencies developing the official u.s.
digital cash system. in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if there are 
divisions in the nsa dedicated to doing it *this moment*. 

if there are any non-nsa agencies, too, the nsa will probably `pull an nist'
and dominate their development. how? send in a few austere-looking
spooks and speak in phrases like `imperative to national security'
and `presidential directive' and *boom* the flimsy bureacrats are
putty in their hands.

so would anyone like to wager? i'd say that we have an official government
group dedicated to digital cash standards in say, 4 years, with an 
official agency in say, 7 years. cpunks, are you going to be ready
by then with your own cash? <g>

btw, could someone tell me how the proposed visa cash system is different than 
debit cards (which exists today)?

>i doubt it will be long before there
>are some official government agencies developing the official u.s.
>digital cash system. 

This statement betrays an enormous ignorance at the scale of Federal
involvement in retail transaction systems.  The Fed operates Fedwire,
for moving federal funds around, and also does check clearing at the
national level.  All the retail level transaction systems are in
private hands, be they ATM networks and consortia or the credit card
companies.

Eric

erik hughes writes:
>>i doubt it will be long before there
>>are some official government agencies developing the official u.s.
>>digital cash system. 
>
>This statement betrays an enormous ignorance at the scale of Federal
>involvement in retail transaction systems.  The Fed operates Fedwire,
>for moving federal funds around, and also does check clearing at the
>national level.  All the retail level transaction systems are in
>private hands, be they ATM networks and consortia or the credit card
>companies.

so? what's your point? my point was that the nsa was a prime candidate
agency for trying to *expand* the current federal role in the cash
system. are you saying the federal government already has a `digital
cash system'? well, yes, i guess in some sense.

what guarantees that `retail level transaction systems' will always be
in private hands? don't you think the nsa would really get their jollies
from building the offical Secure Cash Register System with clipper
chips built in? isn't this pretty much what they are trying to do with
`private' computers right now?

are you saying you don't expect the federal government to expand their
role in cash systems? or that it is already as large as it can get?

we have to fight off these encroaches onto private territory wherever
they happen. clipper was *not* a surprise given the past nsa history.
it would *not* be surprising if the nsa got into the digital cash
design area in the future, or expanded its role in the current one.

besides, who the hell are you to call me `enormously ignorant', 
vacuum brain! <g> you act like you own the list or something. (oh no,
not that thread again-- cypherpunks list as a volleyball game....
SPIKE!!!) 

`betraying an enormous ignorance', 
--tmp

(erik hughes's OTHER testicle <g>)

> 
> 
> erik hughes writes:
> >>i doubt it will be long before there
> >>are some official government agencies developing the official u.s.
> >>digital cash system. 
> >
> >This statement betrays an enormous ignorance at the scale of Federal
> >involvement in retail transaction systems.  The Fed operates Fedwire,
> >for moving federal funds around, and also does check clearing at the
> >national level.  All the retail level transaction systems are in
> >private hands, be they ATM networks and consortia or the credit card
> >companies.
> 
> so? what's your point? my point was that the nsa was a prime candidate
> agency for trying to *expand* the current federal role in the cash
> system. are you saying the federal government already has a `digital
> cash system'? well, yes, i guess in some sense.

I don't think this is consistent with the approach the NSA has 
traditionally taken, nor do I think it is consistent with the general 
attitude for the proper place of intelligence agencies.  See below.


> what guarantees that `retail level transaction systems' will always be
> in private hands? don't you think the nsa would really get their jollies
> from building the offical Secure Cash Register System with clipper
> chips built in? isn't this pretty much what they are trying to do with
> `private' computers right now?

What intelligence agency would want to use a system that was obviously in 
federal control?

Why do you think BCCI was so popular with intelligence agencies?  The KEY 
effort in any agency is money laundering.  This is by definition the 
primary function of intelligence agencies, to bring funds to bear 
properly and quietly on projects and goals that don't sit well in 
public.  Using an "offical [sic] Secure Cash Register System" is shooting 
an intelligence agency and all the benefits of quiet transactions in the foot.

Rule #X:  Intelligence agencies use foreign banks frequently.

> 
> are you saying you don't expect the federal government to expand their
> role in cash systems? or that it is already as large as it can get?

Lumping the Federal system in with intelligence agencies in this 
context betrays significant ignorance in the structure of modern government.

Between this and your misconception of the Federal financial structure 
that Eric was so quick to point out, I think you should keep your day job 
Det, or is this it?

> we have to fight off these encroaches onto private territory wherever
> they happen. clipper was *not* a surprise given the past nsa history.

Clipper is a HUGE surprise considering the NSA history.

Two words:
Too Public.

I attribute the public outing of the NSA to an [unnamed] high administration 
official with no concept of the proper application of intelligence 
agencies except as a tool to support his dwindling programs.

I have a tremendous respect for the Office of the Presidency however.

The fact that the NSA is publicly supporting clipper betrays fear by the 
administration, the improper use of the agency, and a great deal of 
ignorance in intelligence in general.  I might add that in my personal 
opinion it is a perversion.

> it would *not* be surprising if the nsa got into the digital cash
> design area in the future, or expanded its role in the current one.

Yes it would.  This is not the function of the NSA.  The NSA either 
performs communications and signal intelligence or functions as an 
appropriations agency for secure communications channels for government.  
The contemporary trend to use the agency for anything from public 
relations and government regulations is a mistake of application by the 
current administration.  The NSA is enjoying its moment in the spotlight 
for the time, but at the core this is a secret agency.  One of two 
things will happen (and I would argue one of these already has)

1>  The responsibility for the darker activities the NSA is (was) 
responsible for will be switched.
2>  The NSA will grow tired of its moments in the limelight and realize 
that serious business needs to be attended to.

The NSA is always better off when no one is talking about the NSA.

An NSA that participates in the public restructuring of a basic financial 
system on any level beyond the development of the technology is just 
not in line with an agency that has better security on the local power 
stations than the President has in general.
 
> besides, who the hell are you to call me `enormously ignorant', 
> vacuum brain! <g> you act like you own the list or something. (oh no,
> not that thread again-- cypherpunks list as a volleyball game....
> SPIKE!!!) 
>

Your petty attempts at punctuation filtration leave much to be desired.
We all know you, just use caps ok?

> `betraying an enormous ignorance', 
> --tmp

You said it, I did not, except for above.

> (erik hughes's OTHER testicle <g>)
> 

I don't think so.
Eric's testicles are surely much larger than you.

-uni- (Dark)

tmp:
> so? what's your point? my point was that the nsa was a prime candidate
> agency for trying to *expand* the current federal role in the cash
> system. are you saying the federal government already has a `digital
> cash system'? well, yes, i guess in some sense.

unicorn:

>Why do you think BCCI was so popular with intelligence agencies?  The KEY 
>effort in any agency is money laundering.  This is by definition the 
>primary function of intelligence agencies, to bring funds to bear 
>properly and quietly on projects and goals that don't sit well in 
>public. 

yikes, hold on a sec. i was talking about the nsa. if you are for a minute
suggesting the nsa is involved in money laundering i think you are *utterly*
mistaken. also, i very sincerely doubt that money laundering is a major,
minor, or even existing part of any u.s. intelligence services. there is
a gray area where sometimes an agency is associated with money launderers,
because they may be informants or whatever, but try to point to any 
u.s. intelligence operation that involved money laundering? and just
try to pretend that the nsa was involved--
 
i reiterate my point: designing a secure digital cash system would be
a key area that the nsa would be interested in. in fact, i think it is
highly likely that they have already designed significant parts of the
existing u.s. transaction infrastructure at certain levels. (they
vetted DES, right?!)
(references? would be appreciated) that is essentially what clipper
is intended to do.

>> are you saying you don't expect the federal government to expand their
>> role in cash systems? or that it is already as large as it can get?
>
>Lumping the Federal system in with intelligence agencies in this 
>context betrays significant ignorance in the structure of modern government.

the point of the nsa is that there is `no structure' to a government
bureaucracy that senses its own impending extinction. clipper is a grasp
at an area that virtually all analysts agree is not a historical precedent
for them, and that dangerously impedes on *domestic* and *commercial* affairs,
something they have never been authorized to do. (cpsr foia requests
posted to various newsgroups are strong on this point)

>Between this and your misconception of the Federal financial structure 
>that Eric was so quick to point out, I think you should keep your day job 
>Det, or is this it?

sigh. fine. smear me with some more `det' insults. what was my misconception?
neither you or erik have yet to specify what it is exactly.  i admit that
i don't have a close grasp on e.g. the check clearing system and what 
elements are in federal hands. but instead of yelling at and insulting me, 
maybe erik could explain exactly how this system works. i doubt i am 
the only one who is not aware of the precise structure. anyway, my basic
point has nothing to do with the existing infrastructure.

as for my `day job', parry meztger asked about this too. well, pick one
of the following

1) bored millionaire with nothing better to do than go to drug parties
and hang out in cyberspace, using all kinds of infantile pranks with
pseudonyms...
2) shearson-lehman brokerage agent, dealing with computerized trading
strategies, sometimes `libertarian lecturer', with a real jekyll-and-hyde
cyberpersonality
3) working with Ted Nelson on the Xanadoodoo project as a consultant,
building a `digital bank' on the internet at a glacialy slow pace.
4) entrepreneur starting a new internet company specializing in mailing
lists, pseudonyms, etc.
5) GIS consultant working on database design for power companies

>> we have to fight off these encroaches onto private territory wherever 
>> they happen. clipper was *not* a surprise given the past nsa history.
>Clipper is a HUGE surprise considering the NSA history.
>
>Two words:
>Too Public.

no, i think you can look at their past and see that they were proposing
subsystems for computers with `tappability' built in long before clipper.
some of the real old veterans here might be able to confirm this (cyberspace
has a very short memory) yes, clipper was the most public nsa program
ever devised. but remember that the nsa has *never* (that i know of)
acknowledged building it in official press releases. 
instead, it is portrayed as an NIST 
invention built based on presidential directive and the help of `several
key agencies' (hee hee, love that phrase)

>I attribute the public outing of the NSA to an [unnamed] high administration 
>official with no concept of the proper application of intelligence 
>agencies except as a tool to support his dwindling programs.

i have no idea what you are tallking about. `public outing'? the nsa
cannot accomplish their goal with clipper *without* going public, namely
to create a tappable worldwide cryptographic standard. yes, there is
a lot of `save our butts' mentality along with the creation of it.

or are you just talking about the nsa having a higher profile because
someone thinks they can advance by touting it? i think you are wrong
there. the people in the nsa have the attitude, almost, that even 
talking about the existence of the agency to outsiders is a crime.
and what does anyone outside the agency have to benefit by promoting
it publicly? they would lose favor with those inside it.

>The fact that the NSA is publicly supporting clipper betrays fear by the 
>administration, the improper use of the agency, and a great deal of 
>ignorance in intelligence in general.  I might add that in my personal 
>opinion it is a perversion.

it appears the executive branch was not fully involved in the
clipper decisions. this is really patently obvious. clipper was
developed more or less independently by the nsa and then passed off
as a `presidential directive'. i agree it is a perversion. but the overwhelming
evidence is that it originated inside the agency, not outside it.

>> it would *not* be surprising if the nsa got into the digital cash
>> design area in the future, or expanded its role in the current one.
>
>Yes it would.  This is not the function of the NSA.  The NSA either 
>performs communications and signal intelligence or functions as an 
>appropriations agency for secure communications channels for government.  

oh, i see, and how is the nation's cash system not a `secure communication
channel for the government'?  what do you think it means on your bills
where it says, `this is legal tender for all debts, public or private'?
cash is the *embodiment* of an official government `secure' channel.
the fact that it is paper-based is merely a coincidence.

you refuse to even ponder my basic point: the nsa has a history
of trying to glom onto new areas of conquest. a cash system would be 
something they eye very greedily. what prevents it? *nothing*. ask
anyone several months before clipper came out, and they would be saying

>This is not the function of the NSA.  The NSA either 
>performs communications and signal intelligence or functions as an 
>appropriations agency for secure communications channels for government.  
...

>The contemporary trend to use the agency for anything from public 
>relations and government regulations is a mistake of application by the 
>current administration.  The NSA is enjoying its moment in the spotlight 
>for the time, but at the core this is a secret agency. 

yes, but they are finding that trying to be secret and accomplish the
goal of limiting cryptography are mutually exlusive goals. and this
has *nothing* to do with the `current administration'. clipper originated
long before the clintons.

> One of two 
>things will happen (and I would argue one of these already has)
>
>1>  The responsibility for the darker activities the NSA is (was) 
>responsible for will be switched.

what `darker activities'? money laundering?! hee, hee, you better go
reread your bamford.

>2>  The NSA will grow tired of its moments in the limelight and realize 
>that serious business needs to be attended to.

what business?! i repeat, no one in the NSA wants to `be in the limelight'
and clipper is no such attempt to do so. do you think clipper is dead now?
if so, you are wrong.  public outcry means *nothing* against government
obstinacy.

>The NSA is always better off when no one is talking about the NSA.

this sounds like a trite cliche from someone in the agency. i agree, but where
does that leave clipper? how is it you can write so much about the nsa without
using that word? do you think they will abandon it? that is the only way
they can stop being the object of widespread public ridicule. the
nsa has two basic agendas:

1) intercept/restrict/control cryptography
2) do so secretly

these two goals are fundamentally incompatible in 21st century cyberspace.
in fact, i would argue they are both fundamentally impossible. die, nsa, die.

>An NSA that participates in the public restructuring of a basic financial 
>system on any level beyond the development of the technology is just 
>not in line with an agency that has better security on the local power 
>stations than the President has in general.

`local power stations'?!?! what the !@#$%^&* are you talking about? if
you think the nsa cares what the presidents thinks, you are mostly mistaken.
the nsa cares about how to get the president to think what they want him to
think.
 
>> (erik hughes's OTHER testicle <g>)
>> 
>
>I don't think so.
>Eric's testicles are surely much larger than you.

really? how big were they last time you checked? <g>

btw, someone said that `testicle' is a pun of `tentacle'. could someone
tell me what a `tentacle' is? how does this relate to the d-stuff?
just curious. uh, maybe nevermind <g>

>i admit that
>i don't have a close grasp on e.g. the check clearing system and what 
>elements are in federal hands. but instead of yelling at and insulting me, 
>maybe erik could explain exactly how this system works. 

I have no interest in discussion with those who make strident claims
in reckless ignorance, who then expect other people to correct them,
and, worse yet, who finally insist on bickering over the accuracy of
anything one might say.

Use a library.  That's a place with lots of paper periodicals and
paper books.  Library materials not online, mostly, but it is still
where most of the world's encoded knowledge is stored.  If you don't
like paper, tough.  That's the way the world is right now.

If you like, I _will_ explain to you offline some resources available
in libraries about these topics, but only after I've seen some
evidence of a good faith effort to visit a library, such as, say, some
interesting story in a recent _American Banker_.

Eric

>also, i very sincerely doubt that money laundering is a major,
>minor, or even existing part of any u.s. intelligence services. 

_Cocaine Politics_, by Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall.

Read up.

Eric

Proposal: Dave Emory, radio broadcaster, will be speaking Saturday
night. Details below. I suggest some of us meet there after the
physical meeting of the Cyperpunks in Mountain View.

Eric Hughes wrote, quoting Detweiler:

> >also, i very sincerely doubt that money laundering is a major,
> >minor, or even existing part of any u.s. intelligence services. 
> 
> _Cocaine Politics_, by Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall.
> 
> Read up.
> 
> Eric

Indeed. Many fine books cover this area. Another is "The Politics of
Heroin in Southeast Asia," by Alfred McCoy. In fact, there are so many
citations to support the links mentioned that I hardly know where to
begin.

Coincidentally, my favorite radio commentator, Dave Emory, will give a
3-hour lecture on "Drugs and Fascism" (or a similar title) on Saturday
evening, 7-10 p.m., at Foothill Community College, Room F-12. Foothill
is in Los Altos Hills, visible from Highway 280. I believe the cost
will be $10.

I've seen Dave speak twice before, on other topics. He can speak for
hours without notes and with captivating presentation. Whether you
agree with all his points or not, this three hours will surely be
enjoyable and may even change your outlook on things.

Dave has a radio talk show on Sunday nights from 7-11 p.m., on KFJC,
89.7. Some of this is rebroadcast Monday night, 9-10:30 on KKUP, 91.5.
I can't get the KFJC broadcast here in Santa Cruz, but I religiously
listen to the KKUP broadcast on Monday nights.

I understand that radio stations around the country, at least a
handful of them, rebroadcast his tapes.

His theme is the national security state, the role of the State in
suppressing freedom, the various "conspiracies" of Inslaw, Casolaro,
P-2, Gehlen, NSA, Contras, Cabazon, Nazis, etc. (If these words mean
something to you, then you know what Dave talks about. If these words
mean nothing to you, then you owe it to yourself to at least spend a
few hours listening.)

Dave is generally left of center, but I find him refreshing and
tolerable. He even supports gun rights....and wears an "NRA" cap to
his talks! ("To freak out the politically correct," he once quipped.)

I've called in to his radio show a couple of time and have updated him
and his audience on the Clipper chip, the links between the NSA and
the Witness Security Program, the murder of several NSA employees
because of their ties to journalist Danny Casolaro, and the general
threat of the surveillance state. Emory was very knoweldgeable about
the NSA and plans to do more on it in the future.

I plan to attend this lecture after the physical Cypherpunks meeting
in Mountain View on this coming Saturday. I suggest we make it an
"outing." (If $10 is too much, scrimp on dinner that evening and
instead go to the lecture.)

(Sometime schedules for such things change. If anyone has heard of any
cancellations, or can confirm the date, place, and lecture title,
please mail me, or post here.)

Hope to see you there!

--Tim May

-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

> 
> 
> tmp:
> > so? what's your point? my point was that the nsa was a prime candidate
> > agency for trying to *expand* the current federal role in the cash
> > system. are you saying the federal government already has a `digital
> > cash system'? well, yes, i guess in some sense.
> 
> unicorn:
> 
> >Why do you think BCCI was so popular with intelligence agencies?  The KEY 
> >effort in any agency is money laundering.  This is by definition the 
> >primary function of intelligence agencies, to bring funds to bear 
> >properly and quietly on projects and goals that don't sit well in 
> >public. 
> 
> yikes, hold on a sec. i was talking about the nsa. if you are for a minute
> suggesting the nsa is involved in money laundering i think you are *utterly*
> mistaken.

Then we have a difference of opinion.

I'm not going to try and convince a subborn fanatic, nor educate one on 
the operation and methods of intelligence agencies.  If you are not 
convinced that intelligence agencies create and use front companies, 
agents of influence in financial institutions, bribery, blind political 
support funds and transactions in general, you are not worth discussing 
the topic with until you read or do some intelligence work.

> also, i very sincerely doubt that money laundering is a major,
> minor, or even existing part of any u.s. intelligence services

I repeat the above.  Money laundering is essential to any intelligence 
operation, foreign based or U.S. based.  This is important not only to 
hide activities from the scrutiny of the public and hostile intelligence, 
but also to hide the source from the recipient.  Many political movements 
the U.S. would support, wouldn't be interested in the support if they 
knew it came from the U.S., or worse, U.S. intelligence.

> there is
> a gray area where sometimes an agency is associated with money launderers,
> because they may be informants or whatever, but try to point to any 
> u.s. intelligence operation that involved money laundering? and just
> try to pretend that the nsa was involved--

Radio free America.
Radio free Europe (Set up by a "Private" company)
Radio Liberty.
U.S. Listening posts in Great Britain.
Cuban resistance movements.
The Schoenfeld tunnel.
Support for the American Federation of Labor
Support for anti-Communist American Students abroad in the 50's-60's.
Civil Air Transport (takeover)
Air America and the partner Southern Air Transport.
Airdale (the holding corp for the above)

How many do you want?

Asserting that U.S. intelligence does not and has no need of money 
laundering is silly.  Asserting that the NSA is never involved is also 
silly.  Regardless, your assertion that the NSA will become involved in 
the control of Federal Transactions because it will give government 
more control is flawed even by your own accepted factors.

> i reiterate my point: designing a secure digital cash system would be
> a key area that the nsa would be interested in.

This was not your point, your point was that the NSA would control such a 
system.  This point is also flawed.  The NSA may create the technical 
means, but logistics are not in the cards.

 in fact, i think it is
> highly likely that they have already designed significant parts of the
> existing u.s. transaction infrastructure at certain levels. (they
> vetted DES, right?!)

This is a point entirely separate from the above.
This is what the NSA does, it does not create institutions for public use.

> (references? would be appreciated) that is essentially what clipper
> is intended to do.

Wrong.
Clipper is intended to maintain the COMINT/SIGINT ability domestically.  
This has nothing to do with finances and digital cash except in so far as 
the same hardware might be use to implement same BY PRIVATE ENTITIES.
This is of course assuming the private development of these systems is 
not sufficient, a premise which grows weaker by the day.

Intelligence would never risk overt control of domestic financial 
institutions that were not dedicated for use.  A silent involvement with 
a foreign bank through a front is much more efficient.

> >> are you saying you don't expect the federal government to expand their
> >> role in cash systems? or that it is already as large as it can get?
> >
> >Lumping the Federal system in with intelligence agencies in this 
> >context betrays significant ignorance in the structure of modern government.
> 
> the point of the nsa is that there is `no structure' to a government
> bureaucracy that senses its own impending extinction.

Where do you get this from?  The NSA is perhaps the most structured 
intelligence agency in the United States.  They certainly know their bounds 
better than the other collection arms, and I won't even mention the HUMINT
people.

> clipper is a grasp
> at an area that virtually all analysts agree is not a historical precedent
> for them,

It's easy to spout "virtually all analysts."  Want to tell us who and when?
As for historical precedent, when has the NSA come out public supporting 
a POLICY decision and not a technological development?  Clipper is not a 
grasp by intelligence, it is a utilization by executive authority of 
intelligence to support a centralist program.  If you cannot understand 
the distinction, you need to stay out of politics, and political analysis.

> and that dangerously impedes on *domestic* and *commercial* affairs,
> something they have never been authorized to do. (cpsr foia requests
> posted to various newsgroups are strong on this point)

Which CPSR requests?  How is this an intelligence operation that impedes 
on domestic affairs?  I repeat the above, this is program from the 
EXECUTIVE branch.

> >Between this and your misconception of the Federal financial structure 
> >that Eric was so quick to point out, I think you should keep your day job 
> >Det, or is this it?
> 
> sigh. fine. smear me with some more `det' insults. what was my misconception?
> neither you or erik have yet to specify what it is exactly.  i admit that
> i don't have a close grasp on e.g. the check clearing system and what 
> elements are in federal hands. but instead of yelling at and insulting me, 
> maybe erik could explain exactly how this system works. i doubt i am 
> the only one who is not aware of the precise structure. anyway, my basic
> point has nothing to do with the existing infrastructure.

Asserting that the FED had as much influence on retail financial 
transactions as you would have was your mistake.  Again, you make bald 
assertions that have no basis in fact, but merely seem to you to fit your 
argument, facts you already assume to be true and thus are convenient for 
you to adopt.  Try the reverse, come up with the facts first THEN move to 
the premise.

> as for my `day job', parry meztger asked about this too. well, pick one
> of the following
> 
> 1) bored millionaire with nothing better to do than go to drug parties
> and hang out in cyberspace, using all kinds of infantile pranks with
> pseudonyms...

You're far to narrow to be rich.

> 2) shearson-lehman brokerage agent, dealing with computerized trading
> strategies, sometimes `libertarian lecturer', with a real jekyll-and-hyde
> cyberpersonality

If you understood financial structure, this might have more credibility 
than it does. (Still limited regardless)

> 3) working with Ted Nelson on the Xanadoodoo project as a consultant,
> building a `digital bank' on the internet at a glacialy slow pace.

Again, the financial ignorance.

> 4) entrepreneur starting a new internet company specializing in mailing
> lists, pseudonyms, etc.

"Self Employed."  I think this is closer.

> 5) GIS consultant working on database design for power companies

Better get to work and off the net, you might get fired if your boss 
walks into the cubical you spend the day in and sees you wasting his paid 
time smearing cheese puffs on the keyboard while goofing off on the net.

> >> we have to fight off these encroaches onto private territory wherever 
> >> they happen. clipper was *not* a surprise given the past nsa history.
> >Clipper is a HUGE surprise considering the NSA history.
> >
> >Two words:
> >Too Public.
> 
> no, i think you can look at their past and see that they were proposing
> subsystems for computers with `tappability' built in long before clipper.
> some of the real old veterans here might be able to confirm this (cyberspace
> has a very short memory)

I'll leave it up to you to decide how the above differs from Clipper and 
the NSA's involvement.  Your failure to identify the distinction just adds 
to my assessment that you have no background in intelligence or financial 
institutions and thus have no business at all making this argument which 
requires no knowledge but in these two areas.

> yes, clipper was the most public nsa program
> ever devised. but remember that the nsa has *never* (that i know of)
> acknowledged building it in official press releases. 
> instead, it is portrayed as an NIST 
> invention built based on presidential directive and the help of `several
> key agencies' (hee hee, love that phrase)

Ok, let's assume your correct, a dubious position.  I'll call this the 
"NIST" front theory.
In some ways it makes sense in that agencies are usually created as an 
insulator the to executive.

> >I attribute the public outing of the NSA to an [unnamed] high administration 
> >official with no concept of the proper application of intelligence 
> >agencies except as a tool to support his dwindling programs.
> 
> i have no idea what you are tallking about.

I don't doubt it.

> `public outing'? the nsa
> cannot accomplish their goal with clipper *without* going public, namely
> to create a tappable worldwide cryptographic standard. yes, there is
> a lot of `save our butts' mentality along with the creation of it.

Now let's go back to your "NIST" front theory.  If the policy is already 
in the open and attributed to NIST, why must the NSA be publically 
involved?  Surely the NIST front was created to mask involvement in some 
way yes?  If this is so, as your reading of the "several key agencies" 
clause seems to suggest, why is the NSA talking publicly?  Why is a NSA 
public relations official straight out of Q43 going to conferences?
How is the NIST front acting to insulate the President here?
A "ClusterFuck" even by your definition.
Mr. Sternlight, care to comment here?

> or are you just talking about the nsa having a higher profile because
> someone thinks they can advance by touting it? i think you are wrong
> there. the people in the nsa have the attitude, almost, that even 
> talking about the existence of the agency to outsiders is a crime.
> and what does anyone outside the agency have to benefit by promoting
> it publicly? they would lose favor with those inside it.

Did you even read my message?

The NSA is being used here.  How can you reconcile the attitude and 
culture the NSA has with your insistence that the NSA must go public when 
even you admit a public front has already be established and the NSA 
need not be involved?  I think you forget what the last paragraph in your 
idea was before writing the next.

My whole point is that the NSA is being manipulated as a public relations 
tool and this is silly and betrays a total lack of intelligence 
experience by whoever is directing them.  Gee, I wonder, who's program is 
it now that the NSA is supporting?  Who might stand to gain from having 
that program succeed?  Who is probably then directing the NSA to support 
the program in public?  You really don't know anything about intelligence 
do you?

> >The fact that the NSA is publicly supporting clipper betrays fear by the 
> >administration, the improper use of the agency, and a great deal of 
> >ignorance in intelligence in general.  I might add that in my personal 
> >opinion it is a perversion.
> 
> it appears the executive branch was not fully involved in the
> clipper decisions. this is really patently obvious.

Patently obvious?  You only support it with your assumptions which I will 
now challenge, hardly obvious.

> clipper was
> developed more or less independently by the nsa and then passed off
> as a `presidential directive'. i agree it is a perversion. but the overwhelming
> evidence is that it originated inside the agency, not outside it.

Clipper was an offshoot of the public key technology.  The effort on 
Clipper strings back to the Bush/Reagan era.  NSA is not a policy agency.
They came up with the technology because that's what they are paid to do.  
Applications for the technology are suggested, but it's up to other 
authority to apply it in practice.  It's called the take care clause.  
Suggesting that Clipper, including the policy decisions, is an NSA 
creation is ignorant.  The technology might be an NSA invention, or 
theft, the Clipper program is not.

> >> it would *not* be surprising if the nsa got into the digital cash
> >> design area in the future, or expanded its role in the current one.
> >
> >Yes it would.  This is not the function of the NSA.  The NSA either 
> >performs communications and signal intelligence or functions as an 
> >appropriations agency for secure communications channels for government.  
> 
> oh, i see, and how is the nation's cash system not a `secure communication
> channel for the government'?  what do you think it means on your bills
> where it says, `this is legal tender for all debts, public or private'?
> cash is the *embodiment* of an official government `secure' channel.
> the fact that it is paper-based is merely a coincidence.

You do babble don't you.

Your theory that the NSA seeks to control federal financial transactions 
and to develop a digital cash system to further that goal has nothing to 
do with the text on a bill.  You think the NSA established the ATM 
network outside of the DES derivative it may use?  That alone 
disqualifies you as an authority on the point.

> you refuse to even ponder my basic point: the nsa has a history
> of trying to glom onto new areas of conquest. a cash system would be 
> something they eye very greedily. what prevents it? *nothing*.

I refuse to ponder your point because it implodes when touched.

You treat the intelligence agencies as a separate policy making arm of 
the government not as a tool of the executive.

> ask
> anyone several months before clipper came out, and they would be saying
> >This is not the function of the NSA.  The NSA either 
> >performs communications and signal intelligence or functions as an 
> >appropriations agency for secure communications channels for government.  
> ...
> 
> >The contemporary trend to use the agency for anything from public 
> >relations and government regulations is a mistake of application by the 
> >current administration.  The NSA is enjoying its moment in the spotlight 
> >for the time, but at the core this is a secret agency. 
> 
> yes, but they are finding that trying to be secret and accomplish the
> goal of limiting cryptography are mutually exlusive goals. and this
> has *nothing* to do with the `current administration'. clipper originated
> long before the clintons.

"They" as in the NSA?
(Sigh)  Do you hear nothing?

The NSA may have suggested that certain technologies were going to loosen 
their grip on domestic COMINT/SIGINT.  How this makes the NSA a policy 
arm is beyond me, and I think even you.

I might add that limiting cryptography is hardly a goal mutually 
exclusive with secrecy.  You illuminated this yourself when you mentioned 
the "NIST" front theory.  The NSA does not HAVE to be involved here.  You 
have yet to show me otherwise.

> > One of two 
> >things will happen (and I would argue one of these already has)
> >
> >1>  The responsibility for the darker activities the NSA is (was) 
> >responsible for will be switched.
> 
> what `darker activities'? money laundering?! hee, hee, you better go
> reread your bamford.

See above for money laundering discussion.
See above for suggestions on topics to read up on.

> >2>  The NSA will grow tired of its moments in the limelight and realize 
> >that serious business needs to be attended to.
> 
> what business?! i repeat, no one in the NSA wants to `be in the limelight'
> and clipper is no such attempt to do so. do you think clipper is dead now?
> if so, you are wrong.  public outcry means *nothing* against government
> obstinacy.

You seem to have switched your position pretty quickly.  

Compare:
> yes, but they are finding that trying to be secret and accomplish the
> goal of limiting cryptography are mutually exlusive goals.

With:
>i repeat, no one in the NSA wants to `be in the limelight'
> and clipper is no such attempt to do so
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is left to the reader to harmonize these two.


> >The NSA is always better off when no one is talking about the NSA.
> 
> this sounds like a trite cliche from someone in the agency. i agree, but where
> does that leave clipper? how is it you can write so much about the nsa without
> using that word?

It leaves Clipper in trouble.  Never involve an intelligence agency in 
public affairs that might attract press and public opinion.  Silly.  Who 
might be responsible for this?  What a clod.

But I do have a great deal of respect for the Office of the Presidency.

> do you think they will abandon it? that is the only way
> they can stop being the object of widespread public ridicule.

Which is why, in part, that the publicity was a mistake.

 the
> nsa has two basic agendas:
>
> 1) intercept/restrict/control cryptography
> 2) do so secretly

Wrong.

1)  Provide for government communications security.
2)  Provide and insure continued SIGINT/COMINT ability.

> 
> these two goals are fundamentally incompatible in 21st century cyberspace.
> in fact, i would argue they are both fundamentally impossible. die, nsa, die.

You mean, you would tell us that your going to argue this point, but then 
not support it.  These goals are not incompatible even if they were 
the goals of the NSA.  
 
> >An NSA that participates in the public restructuring of a basic financial 
> >system on any level beyond the development of the technology is just 
> >not in line with an agency that has better security on the local power 
> >stations than the President has in general.
> 
> `local power stations'?!?! what the !@#$%^&* are you talking about?

I guess you've never been to Fort Meade, Maryland.  My mistake.

> if
> you think the nsa cares what the presidents [sic] thinks, you are mostly 
mistaken.
> the nsa cares about how to get the president to think what they want him to
> think.

Who do you suppose directs the appointment of NSA?
Are you arguing that the NSA is unaccountable?

Study political science as well as Financial Institutions and Intelligence.


> >> (erik hughes's OTHER testicle <g>)
> >> 
> >
> >I don't think so.
> >Eric's testicles are surely much larger than you.
> 
> really? how big were they last time you checked? <g>

Eric has more balls than you ever will my friend.

> btw, someone said that `testicle' is a pun of `tentacle'. could someone
> tell me what a `tentacle' is? how does this relate to the d-stuff?
> just curious. uh, maybe nevermind <g>
> 

-uni- (Dark)

unicorn@access.digex.net
makes several claims about the nsa, clipper, and money laundering
that i find patently absurd. my source for nsa information is mostly
bamford. no where in the book is any mention made of money laundering.
i find preposterous the claim that the nsa is involved in money 
laundering. unicorn's argument is entirely by analogy-- the nsa is an
intelligence organization, money laundering is highly useful to
intelligence organizations, therefore the nsa is laundering money. <smirk>

>> i reiterate my point: designing a secure digital cash system would be
>> a key area that the nsa would be interested in.
>
>This was not your point, your point was that the NSA would control such a 
>system.  This point is also flawed.  The NSA may create the technical 
>means, but logistics are not in the cards.

how are the logistics different than the technical means? if the nsa
designs key parts of a digital cash infrastructure, don't you think that
counts as `the logistics'?

>> in fact, i think it is
>> highly likely that they have already designed significant parts of the
>> existing u.s. transaction infrastructure at certain levels. (they
>> vetted DES, right?!)
>
>This is a point entirely separate from the above.
>This is what the NSA does, it does not create institutions for public use.

what is clipper? it is designed to become institutionalized wiretapping,
wouldn't you say?

>> (references? would be appreciated) that is essentially what clipper
>> is intended to do.
>
>Wrong.
>Clipper is intended to maintain the COMINT/SIGINT ability domestically.  

wrong. nsa has no authority to do comint and sigint domestically and
there is no evidence they do so. some leaks into the vacuum cleaner but
there is no design to capture it specifically.

>Intelligence would never risk overt control of domestic financial 
>institutions that were not dedicated for use.  A silent involvement with 
>a foreign bank through a front is much more efficient.

this amounts to flimsy psychoanalysis of the nsa. i am not claiming the
nsa is going to start a covert money laundering campaign in the u.s.
i am saying that the design of a digital cash infrastructure would be
immensely appealing for them to study, and i will bet you anything that
there are parts of it dedicated to exactly that purpose. maybe they
are in a very preliminary stage, but the trends in the nsa suggest
this is another thing they would be overjoyed to glom onto.

[`nsa is unstructured so it can expand influence']
>Where do you get this from?  The NSA is perhaps the most structured 
>intelligence agency in the United States.  They certainly know their bounds 
>better than the other collection arms, and I won't even mention the HUMINT
>people.

ridiculous assertion. if they `knew their bounds' why did they come up with
clipper? why do we have the domestic surveillance abuses of the 60's and
70's? i am beginning to think you are purposely writing so stupidly as to
make my arguments so patently superior, that you may be my own `straight
man' or `puppet' (hee, hee)

[clipper]
>I repeat the above, this is program from the 
>EXECUTIVE branch.

this is just so far out of touch with reality that i can't even touch it.
first, consider that this program originated with bush-- if the nsa were
doing it only for the president, why shouldn't they stop now that he is
out of office? secondly, vice president gore is quoted as saying that
some of the nsa decisions, i.e. on key escrow agencies, were `not properly
vetted' (he was quite upset, ask stanton mccandlish). moreover, you are
implying that the clinton administration is driving its development now.
what have you heard from clinton about clipper? personally i haven't 
heard him say too much about it.

>I'll leave it up to you to decide how the above differs from Clipper and 
>the NSA's involvement.  Your failure to identify the distinction just adds 
>to my assessment that you have no background in intelligence or financial 
>institutions and thus have no business at all making this argument which 
>requires no knowledge but in these two areas.

you're right. i'm totally ignorant of all historical facts and the nsa.
the poor nsa was suckered into clipper and public relations by that
nasty grinch bush. if it weren't for him, all would be well. in fact,
probably the skipjack algorithm itself was invented by bush. i bet he
came up with the idea of key escrow too. how could we all have been
so blind?!!

(btw, you don't seem to state that you have even read bamford)

>Now let's go back to your "NIST" front theory.  If the policy is already 
>in the open and attributed to NIST, why must the NSA be publically 
>involved?  Surely the NIST front was created to mask involvement in some 
>way yes?  If this is so, as your reading of the "several key agencies" 
>clause seems to suggest, why is the NSA talking publicly?  

they are not `talking publicly' in a basic sense. 
they are using the NIST as a mouthpiece.

>Why is a NSA 
>public relations official straight out of Q43 going to conferences?

because the NSA invented clipper, and as much as they hate it, they know
that PR is basic to its potential acceptance (hee, hee, as if such a 
thing is possible)

>Mr. Sternlight, care to comment here?

i will not stoop to your barnyard tactics.

>The NSA is being used here.  How can you reconcile the attitude and 
>culture the NSA has with your insistence that the NSA must go public when 
>even you admit a public front has already be established and the NSA 
>need not be involved?  

oh yes, it is that evil wolf Bush that is manipulating the poor old NSA
red-riding hood. the NSA wouldn't touch clipper with a ten foot pole
but they are being forced too. he threatened to take away their pensions
and their decoder rings.

>My whole point is that the NSA is being manipulated as a public relations 
>tool and this is silly and betrays a total lack of intelligence 
>experience by whoever is directing them.  Gee, I wonder, who's program is 
>it now that the NSA is supporting?  Who might stand to gain from having 
>that program succeed?  Who is probably then directing the NSA to support 
>the program in public?  

you seem to have more faith in the NSA than some people have in God.
your premise is (1) clipper is a lousy idea (2) clipper involves PR
(3) the NSA is one of those *superb* and *way cool* intelligence agencies
that would never do anything stupid (4) therefore the nsa is having its
arm twisted into inventing clipper. oooh, what a stark tragedy. someone
call shakespeare so we can immortalize this drama.

>Suggesting that Clipper, including the policy decisions, is an NSA 
>creation is ignorant.  The technology might be an NSA invention, or 
>theft, the Clipper program is not.

what planet are you from? allright, it is an interesting theory, but
it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. are you claiming that bush
was the person that prodded the nsa into doing clipper? why are they
then still plugging away at it? what `unnamed government official'
outside of the NSA has anything to gain from clipper? clipper reeks
of the NSA. the skipjack algorithm, the key escrow, etc. all the central
components of the idea just *scream* NSA. the NSA has tried to do this
type of thing in the past with computers.

>Your theory that the NSA seeks to control federal financial transactions 
>and to develop a digital cash system to further that goal has nothing to 
>do with the text on a bill.  You think the NSA established the ATM 
>network outside of the DES derivative it may use? 

no, but i think it is likely that parts of the federal funds transfer system
use technology ultimately due to NSA. also, if they get to design the 
algorithm (DES) what more could they want? you seem to conflate 
*building an infrastructure for digital cash* with *controlling banks*.
the nsa could easily do the former without the latter. another `voluntary'
system. (hee, hee)

>You treat the intelligence agencies as a separate policy making arm of 
>the government not as a tool of the executive.

to use your own claim-- you say that intelligence agencies use money
laundering as a systematic part of their existence. now, tell me how
many presidents approve of that.

the same argument you use about money laundering -- that intelligence
agencies need an untraceable fund source -- can be made to say that they
are operating independently of presidential (executive) control.

>The NSA may have suggested that certain technologies were going to loosen 
>their grip on domestic COMINT/SIGINT.  How this makes the NSA a policy 
>arm is beyond me, and I think even you.

`suggested'? i think clipper amounts to much more than a `suggestion'.
and it is clearly an nsa-originating policy.

>I might add that limiting cryptography is hardly a goal mutually 
>exclusive with secrecy.

for the nsa it is. if they have policies that limit export of cryptography,
and that impedes software manufacturing in this country, they have taken
a controversial stand that is going to be subjected to the limelight.
if they propose `you must use our algorithm with a trapdoor' they are
inviting ridicule. what kind of sternlight are you, anyway?!!!


Compare:
> yes, but they are finding that trying to be secret and accomplish the
> goal of limiting cryptography are mutually exlusive goals.

With:
>i repeat, no one in the NSA wants to `be in the limelight'
> and clipper is no such attempt to do so
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

right. clipper is a contradiction in design goals: (1) continue the nsa
mission of secrecy and oversight of cryptography (2) promote an algorithm 
to the public.

>It leaves Clipper in trouble.  Never involve an intelligence agency in 
>public affairs that might attract press and public opinion.  Silly.  Who 
>might be responsible for this?  What a clod.

the nsa is the world's greatest collection of clods.

>But I do have a great deal of respect for the Office of the Presidency.

uhm, the bush or clinton one? you are clearly not an atheist, you believe
in the great Intelligence and Executive Gods.

>> do you think they will abandon it? that is the only way
>> they can stop being the object of widespread public ridicule.
>
>Which is why, in part, that the publicity was a mistake.

oh right. how are they going to get private companies to use their algorithms
without `publicity'? i suppose they could start a plan of having a secret
corps of spooks sneak into offices after hours and swap CPUs or something...

>> if
>> you think the nsa cares what the presidents [sic] thinks, you are mostly 
>mistaken.
>> the nsa cares about how to get the president to think what they want him to
>> think.
>
>Are you arguing that the NSA is unaccountable?

essentially, yes. bamford has entire sections dedicated to this 
observation. it is their fundamental attitude exemplified in quotes
all the way up to the directors.

>Eric has more balls than you ever will my friend.

really? i have two. if he has more than that, i'd call it a mutation. <g>

^^^^ oops, accidentally narrowed my identity to 50% of the population....

uni, thanks for playing my cyberspatial straight man, but i really have to 
stop this detweilerish sillyness.  if i say anything more to you, people
will begin to get suspicious. it doesn't help at all that you are 
posting pseudonymously ... <g>

pseudonymously yours,
---tmp

> 
> 
> unicorn@access.digex.net
> makes several claims about the nsa, clipper, and money laundering
> that i find patently absurd. my source for nsa information is mostly
> bamford. 

Your sources are mostly limited.

> no where in the book is any mention made of money laundering.

Therefore none exists.

> i find preposterous the claim that the nsa is involved in money 
> laundering. unicorn's argument is entirely by analogy-- the nsa is an
> intelligence organization, money laundering is highly useful to
> intelligence organizations, therefore the nsa is laundering money. <smirk>

I provided several examples of how money laundering is applied to 
COMINT/SIGINT operations.  You chose to ignore them.

> >> i reiterate my point: designing a secure digital cash system would be
> >> a key area that the nsa would be interested in.
> >
> >This was not your point, your point was that the NSA would control such a 
> >system.  This point is also flawed.  The NSA may create the technical 
> >means, but logistics are not in the cards.
> 
> how are the logistics different than the technical means? if the nsa
> designs key parts of a digital cash infrastructure, don't you think that
> counts as `the logistics'?

No, it does not.
The logistics are an executive function.  How to implement the program, 
how to introduce it to the public etc.  If the NSA was behind this, you 
will be able to explain why the press release was done through the White 
House.

> >> in fact, i think it is
> >> highly likely that they have already designed significant parts of the
> >> existing u.s. transaction infrastructure at certain levels. (they
> >> vetted DES, right?!)
> >
> >This is a point entirely separate from the above.
> >This is what the NSA does, it does not create institutions for public use.
> 
> what is clipper? it is designed to become institutionalized wiretapping,
> wouldn't you say?

No I would not.
I would say that it is designed to maintain the COMINT/SIGINT ability 
domestically and abroad.  Wiretapping is a law enforcement concern 
handled by the FBI.  You'll be looking for the Digital Telephony Bill.

> >> (references? would be appreciated) that is essentially what clipper
> >> is intended to do.
> >
> >Wrong.
> >Clipper is intended to maintain the COMINT/SIGINT ability domestically.  
> 
> wrong. nsa has no authority to do comint and sigint domestically and
> there is no evidence they do so. some leaks into the vacuum cleaner but
> there is no design to capture it specifically.

You source for this factually flawed information?

> >Intelligence would never risk overt control of domestic financial 
> >institutions that were not dedicated for use.  A silent involvement with 
> >a foreign bank through a front is much more efficient.
> 
> this amounts to flimsy psychoanalysis of the nsa. i am not claiming the
> nsa is going to start a covert money laundering campaign in the u.s.
> i am saying that the design of a digital cash infrastructure would be
> immensely appealing for them to study, and i will bet you anything that
> there are parts of it dedicated to exactly that purpose. maybe they
> are in a very preliminary stage, but the trends in the nsa suggest
> this is another thing they would be overjoyed to glom onto.

You now resort to Sternlight type tactics.  Change your assertion to fit 
the mood.  If anything the NSA may design technologies or integrate 
existing technologies that may have Digital Cash applications.  Asserting 
that they will be the institution primarily responsible for implementing 
nationwide digital cash flies in the face of history and theory.

> [`nsa is unstructured so it can expand influence']
> >Where do you get this from?  The NSA is perhaps the most structured 
> >intelligence agency in the United States.  They certainly know their bounds 
> >better than the other collection arms, and I won't even mention the HUMINT
> >people.
> 
> ridiculous assertion. if they `knew their bounds' why did they come up with
> clipper? why do we have the domestic surveillance abuses of the 60's and
> 70's? i am beginning to think you are purposely writing so stupidly as to
> make my arguments so patently superior, that you may be my own `straight
> man' or `puppet' (hee, hee)

Clipper and the design thereof is entirely within the bounds of the NSA 
mission.  I have outlined it for you three times.

You refer to domestic surveillance abuses here and seem to forget that 
four paragraphs ago you were asserting there is no evidence of such 
activity.  Take your Lithium please. 

> [clipper]
> >I repeat the above, this is program from the 
> >EXECUTIVE branch.
> 
> this is just so far out of touch with reality that i can't even touch it.
> first, consider that this program originated with bush-- if the nsa were
> doing it only for the president, why shouldn't they stop now that he is
> out of office?

You seem to propose that all ongoing projects are scrapped in 
intelligence agencies when a new administration takes the reigns.

> secondly, vice president gore is quoted as saying that
> some of the nsa decisions, i.e. on key escrow agencies, were `not properly
> vetted' (he was quite upset, ask stanton mccandlish). moreover, you are
> implying that the clinton administration is driving its development now.
> what have you heard from clinton about clipper? personally i haven't 
> heard him say too much about it.

Delegating the public relations to the vice president is an insulating 
tactic.  Again, read some Political Science, then return.

> >I'll leave it up to you to decide how the above differs from Clipper and 
> >the NSA's involvement.  Your failure to identify the distinction just adds 
> >to my assessment that you have no background in intelligence or financial 
> >institutions and thus have no business at all making this argument which 
> >requires no knowledge but in these two areas.
> 
> you're right. i'm totally ignorant of all historical facts and the nsa.

The first step in getting cured is admitting you have a problem.

> the poor nsa was suckered into clipper and public relations by that
> nasty grinch bush. if it weren't for him, all would be well. in fact,
> probably the skipjack algorithm itself was invented by bush. i bet he
> came up with the idea of key escrow too. how could we all have been
> so blind?!!

More like:
The NSA announced some new technology and potential applications.  The 
Bush administration directed further work to be done, and some general 
guidelines, the Clinton administration continued the work and fast 
tracked the program in conjunction with the current frenzy over 
Superhighways.

> (btw, you don't seem to state that you have even read bamford)

Your reliance on a single source is your downfall.

> >Now let's go back to your "NIST" front theory.  If the policy is already 
> >in the open and attributed to NIST, why must the NSA be publically 
> >involved?  Surely the NIST front was created to mask involvement in some 
> >way yes?  If this is so, as your reading of the "several key agencies" 
> >clause seems to suggest, why is the NSA talking publicly?  
> 
> they are not `talking publicly' in a basic sense. 
> they are using the NIST as a mouthpiece.

You will explain the NSA presence at conventions and debates how?

> >Why is a NSA 
> >public relations official straight out of Q43 going to conferences?
> 
> because the NSA invented clipper, and as much as they hate it, they know
> that PR is basic to its potential acceptance (hee, hee, as if such a 
> thing is possible)

Funny, I thought NIST was the mouthpiece?

> >Mr. Sternlight, care to comment here?
> 
> i will not stoop to your barnyard tactics.
> 
> >The NSA is being used here.  How can you reconcile the attitude and 
> >culture the NSA has with your insistence that the NSA must go public when 
> >even you admit a public front has already be established and the NSA 
> >need not be involved?  
> 
> oh yes, it is that evil wolf Bush that is manipulating the poor old NSA
> red-riding hood. the NSA wouldn't touch clipper with a ten foot pole
> but they are being forced too. he threatened to take away their pensions
> and their decoder rings.

No it is the current administration using the NSA to support a program 
that they feel is dying.  It is the current administration that has no 
idea how to properly utilize intelligence agencies.  Anyone who has 
studied or practiced intelligence will tell you that one of the major 
problems in the field is getting the leadership to listen.  Asserting the 
intelligence is in control of the situation is out of hand. 

> >My whole point is that the NSA is being manipulated as a public relations 
> >tool and this is silly and betrays a total lack of intelligence 
> >experience by whoever is directing them.  Gee, I wonder, who's program is 
> >it now that the NSA is supporting?  Who might stand to gain from having 
> >that program succeed?  Who is probably then directing the NSA to support 
> >the program in public?  
> 
> you seem to have more faith in the NSA than some people have in God.
> your premise is (1) clipper is a lousy idea (2) clipper involves PR
> (3) the NSA is one of those *superb* and *way cool* intelligence agencies
> that would never do anything stupid (4) therefore the nsa is having its
> arm twisted into inventing clipper. oooh, what a stark tragedy. someone
> call shakespeare so we can immortalize this drama.

I have a great deal of faith in the NSA.  I state this without concern.
I also have a great deal of respect for intelligence in general and I am 
of a real belief that intelligence has a place in modern society.  
Intelligence is always doing stupid things, no question about it, but 
usually it is because POLITICS tries to manipulate intelligence and push 
square pegs through round holes.  The NSA is having it's arm twisted to 
play public relations on this.

> >Suggesting that Clipper, including the policy decisions, is an NSA 
> >creation is ignorant.  The technology might be an NSA invention, or 
> >theft, the Clipper program is not.
> 
> what planet are you from? allright, it is an interesting theory, but
> it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. are you claiming that bush
> was the person that prodded the nsa into doing clipper? 

See above analysis of the potential timeline.

>why are they
> then still plugging away at it? what `unnamed government official'
> outside of the NSA has anything to gain from clipper? 

You really have no clue do you?

> clipper reeks
> of the NSA. the skipjack algorithm, the key escrow, etc. all the central
> components of the idea just *scream* NSA. the NSA has tried to do this
> type of thing in the past with computers.

No argument here.

> >Your theory that the NSA seeks to control federal financial transactions 
> >and to develop a digital cash system to further that goal has nothing to 
> >do with the text on a bill.  You think the NSA established the ATM 
> >network outside of the DES derivative it may use? 
> 
> no, but i think it is likely that parts of the federal funds transfer system
> use technology ultimately due to NSA. also, if they get to design the 
> algorithm (DES) what more could they want? you seem to conflate 
> *building an infrastructure for digital cash* with *controlling banks*.
> the nsa could easily do the former without the latter. another `voluntary'
> system. (hee, hee)

Again, this is a stark departure from your original assertion.
You seem to attribute to the NSA a desire for active regulation.

> >You treat the intelligence agencies as a separate policy making arm of 
> >the government not as a tool of the executive.
> 
> to use your own claim-- you say that intelligence agencies use money
> laundering as a systematic part of their existence. now, tell me how
> many presidents approve of that.

All of them.  Any President who uses intelligence knows that money has to 
be laundered.  You think the bay of pigs was done through the U.S. Treasury?
Have I mared the image of your liberal hero President of the era because 
I suggest he might have known about money laundering by the intelligence 
agencies?  Wake up and smell the coffee.  Open your door and look around.

> the same argument you use about money laundering -- that intelligence
> agencies need an untraceable fund source -- can be made to say that they
> are operating independently of presidential (executive) control.

Takes money to make money tmp.
This wont last long if the executive takes away funding.
Are you asserting the NSA and the CIA and Military intelligence operate 
without the authority of the President on such a large scale as to 
include the development of secure cash systems for domestic use?

> >The NSA may have suggested that certain technologies were going to loosen 
> >their grip on domestic COMINT/SIGINT.  How this makes the NSA a policy 
> >arm is beyond me, and I think even you.
> 
> `suggested'? i think clipper amounts to much more than a `suggestion'.
> and it is clearly an nsa-originating policy.

I refuse to argue this point any longer.  NSA does not make policy.

> >I might add that limiting cryptography is hardly a goal mutually 
> >exclusive with secrecy.
> 
> for the nsa it is. if they have policies that limit export of cryptography,
> and that impedes software manufacturing in this country, they have taken
> a controversial stand that is going to be subjected to the limelight.
> if they propose `you must use our algorithm with a trapdoor' they are
> inviting ridicule. what kind of sternlight are you, anyway?!!!

The NSA does not make export policy, only adds to the list of restricted 
items.  How many time must I repeat this?

I suppose I'm not a very good Sternlight.

> 
> Compare:
> > yes, but they are finding that trying to be secret and accomplish the
> > goal of limiting cryptography are mutually exlusive goals.
> 
> With:
> >i repeat, no one in the NSA wants to `be in the limelight'
> > and clipper is no such attempt to do so
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> right. clipper is a contradiction in design goals: (1) continue the nsa
> mission of secrecy and oversight of cryptography (2) promote an algorithm 
> to the public.

These are not the goals, neither are they contradictory.

> >It leaves Clipper in trouble.  Never involve an intelligence agency in 
> >public affairs that might attract press and public opinion.  Silly.  Who 
> >might be responsible for this?  What a clod.
> 
> the nsa is the world's greatest collection of clods.

No, that would be the individuals involved in the policy decisions.
But I do have a great deal of respect for the Office of the Presidency.

> >But I do have a great deal of respect for the Office of the Presidency.
> 
> uhm, the bush or clinton one? you are clearly not an atheist, you believe
> in the great Intelligence and Executive Gods.

Yes, I do believe in the ability of the intelligence agencies under the 
direction of a well organized and knowing executive to accomplish much good.
Such is not the case today.

> >> do you think they will abandon it? that is the only way
> >> they can stop being the object of widespread public ridicule.
> >
> >Which is why, in part, that the publicity was a mistake.
> 
> oh right. how are they going to get private companies to use their algorithms
> without `publicity'? i suppose they could start a plan of having a secret
> corps of spooks sneak into offices after hours and swap CPUs or something...

Again, it should not be the NSA who is involved in the publicity.

Were this done correctly it would have been handled such:
(Assuming the administration was so bold as to attempt such an operation 
in the domestic sphere which is part of the reason the initiative is such 
a clusterfuck)

1>  Establish front technology research company.
2>  Announce breakthrough development through company (Clipper)
3>  Pass down NSA approval of the process and discuss NSA involvement in 
the TECHNOLOGY development without fanfare, and with minimal connection 
to NSA.
4>  Create administrative agency to insulate President and Congress from 
repercussions (NIST)
5>  Implement Clipper with NIST and no further NSA involvement.

Unfortunately the executive branch got it wrong in planning to use the 
NSA as a PR entity.


> >> if
> >> you think the nsa cares what the presidents [sic] thinks, you are mostly 
> >mistaken.
> >> the nsa cares about how to get the president to think what they want him to
> >> think.
> >
> >Are you arguing that the NSA is unaccountable?
> 
> essentially, yes. bamford has entire sections dedicated to this 
> observation. it is their fundamental attitude exemplified in quotes
> all the way up to the directors.

I rest my case here.
 
> >Eric has more balls than you ever will my friend.
> 
> really? i have two. if he has more than that, i'd call it a mutation. <g>
> 
> ^^^^ oops, accidentally narrowed my identity to 50% of the population....
> 
> uni, thanks for playing my cyberspatial straight man, but i really have to 
> stop this detweilerish sillyness.  if i say anything more to you, people
> will begin to get suspicious. it doesn't help at all that you are 
> posting pseudonymously ... <g>
> 
> pseudonymously yours,
> ---tmp
> 
> 

tmp: 

You betray your ignorance yet again.

You battle over the same small points, argue details, and contradict 
yourself in theory repeatedly in your messages.  You cite one source and 
refuse to provide any real backup or any theoretical basis for your 
assertions that will survive a raindrop.

It is clear that your experience in both intelligence and finance is 
limited if existent.

It is clear that you have convinced yourself of an outcome and will 
continue to create facts and theory from whole cloth to support them.

It is clear that you are not open to intellectual discussion.

Therefore I refuse to continue.  Considering the lack of intellectual 
content in your last post, this response was a gift.  Don't expect 
another one.  You have extracted quite enough education at my expense.

I suggest you read up on intelligence agencies.  Consider taking some 
undergraduate level classes in intelligence and then moving to the 
graduate level.  Most of all, I suggest that you, in future, open your mind.


-uni- (Dark)