NII, NSA and Computer Security Act of 1987

Newsgroups: alt.poltics.org.nsa,alt.politics.datahighway,comp.org.eff.talk
In SIGNAL July 1994, on page 88 there is an ad for the Ninth Mid-Altantic
Intelligence Symposium, 20-21 September at the Applied Physics Laboratory,
Johns Jopkins University, Laurel, Maryland.

The title is 'Security Issues of the National Information Infrastructure (NII)
Initiative'.

In fine print "Co-sponsored by AFCEA Central Maryland Chapter and The National
Security Agency".

"The program will begin by outlining in detail the vision of the NII."

[Who's vision?]

"..followed by a series of presentations addressing the security infrastructure
and its relationship to privacy law and policy, requirements for security,
and available technology in the marketplace."

[CAPSTONE, and why requiring it isn't forbidden by the Constitution.]

"The finale will offer a detailed and informative examination of emerging
federal programs and how industry is participating."

"U.S.Citizens Only.  Classified SECRET"
-----

Who the hell co-opted NII for National Security?  Every discussion to date
(at least on the internet) has shown no link to National Security, which
should be the only way NSA is involved.

(ref the Computer Security Act of 1987 assigning NIST responsibility for
development and promulgation of cost-effective computer security standards
and guidelines for the federal unclassified systems community, and their
letter of agreement with NSA.)

Is our friendly TLA breaking CSA 1987 or has Congress been sold a bill of
goods?  (This is analagous to making the phone system a matter of National
Security, something more in tune with an Evil Empire.)

One wonders if this implies Escrow Encryption Standard compliant cryptographic
hardware before one is allowed to participate in what is being billed as a
public accessible service?

My last post, Rainbow Gathering, generated more responses--on the list
and in my mailbox--than I've gotten in a long while. By contrast, my
post last night on Dining Cryptographers generated no reponses. I will
try to learn from this curious situation. (You have been warned.)

But on another matter:

David Koontz wrote:

> The title is 'Security Issues of the National Information Infrastructure (NII)
> "U.S.Citizens Only.  Classified SECRET"

> Who the hell co-opted NII for National Security?  Every discussion to date
> (at least on the internet) has shown no link to National Security, which
> should be the only way NSA is involved.

National Security is to the National Information Infrastructur as the
National Defense Highway Act was to the building of the American
Interstate Highways in the 1950s and into the 60s.

As you all probably have heard, the glorious interstate highways were
built--in the single largest engineering project in the history of the
U.S. (probably not the world, as the Great Wall was pretty
big)--mainly as a part of the Cold War, as a means of transporting
tanks, troops, supplies, and manufactured goods quickly and
efficiently. (Eisenhower had once led an Army group across the back
roads of America in the 1920s or 30s, and was later mightily impressed
by the German autobahns; he pushed for the Defense Highway Act as
President.)

And don't forget it was ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency), a
Department of Defense agency, that funded/developed the ARPANet. (My
first exposure was as a physics student, with an account on the nascent
ARPANet, in 1973.)

I'm not one bit surprised that the NII is being effectively hijacked
by the national security state. That was always the agenda.

> Is our friendly TLA breaking CSA 1987 or has Congress been sold a bill of
> goods?  (This is analagous to making the phone system a matter of National
> Security, something more in tune with an Evil Empire.)

The NCSA was always a bit of a sham. Remember that it was supposed to
replace DES with a new secure standard, and was supposed to ensure the NSA
had no role in setting civilian policy. The "leash" on the NSA, and
the new role of the National Computer Security Center, have not
exactly turned out as announced, have they?

A few Executive Orders and National Security Decision Directives got
in the way.

--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."

> My last post, Rainbow Gathering, generated more responses--on the list
> and in my mailbox--than I've gotten in a long while. By contrast, my
> post last night on Dining Cryptographers generated no reponses. I will
> try to learn from this curious situation. (You have been warned.)

Not surprising.  While Dining Cryptographers was vastly more relevant,
I still haven't digested it.  The Rainbow Gathering was good for an
instant response and didn't require anything resembling thought.  I'll
leave it to you to guess which one I saved.

Oh yes, and I at least felt that the Fortran code was on-topic and
saved it for study.

	--Paul

One problem I see with DC nets is that the government *WILL* hold all 
people involved guilty of conspiricy, then make them prove they are 
inocent.  It would be sufficient, however, to have everyone provide this 
proof of inocence, based upon the sort of thing being discussed in 
sci.crypt under hiding ciphertext in ciphertext.

Roger.

>Date: Fri, 8 Jul 94 21:37:00 PDT
>From: koontzd@lrcs.loral.com (David Koontz )
>To: cypherpunks@toad.com
>Subject:  NII, NSA and Computer Security Act of 1987



>Is our friendly TLA breaking CSA 1987 or has Congress been sold a bill of
>goods?  (This is analagous to making the phone system a matter of National
>Security, something more in tune with an Evil Empire.)

Our friendly TLA had a severe budget cut a few years ago.  Nothing like
that to wake you up to the need to find ways to be useful/needed.

>One wonders if this implies Escrow Encryption Standard compliant cryptographic
>hardware before one is allowed to participate in what is being billed as a
>public accessible service?

Of course.

 - Carl