From: Brad Dolan <bdolan@use.usit.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 07:49:04 PST
To: Peter Trei <trei@process.com>
Subject: re: NIST GAK export meeting, sv
In-Reply-To: <9512061445.AA14166@toad.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.951206104808.1606C-100000@use.usit.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Peter Trei wrote:

> "Hieronymous" says:
> >       (Thanks for the summary, Pat.)
> >       This last bit is really rich. I can't think of a single publically
> > defensible reason for the stipulation that every escrow agent must employ
> > someone with SECRET clearance, but I *can* think of a publically
> > indefensible reason for it -- to facilitate those spooky non-court wiretap
> > authorizations that've been alluded to in the fine print of the GAK
> > proposals.
> 
> This is probably one reason. Another is that they could shut down an
> escrow agent at a moment's notice by pulling the clearances. We
> haven't seen the other requirements, but an interesting question is
> what happens when an escrow agent goes out of business.


Firearms dealers are requred to keep records of purchases.  In theory 
(and by law) they don't pass these records along to the authorities 
except in response to specific inquiries.

However, in the last couple of years there have been numerous reports of 
mass copying of records by BATF or surrogates (specifics on request).

And when a firearms dealer goes out of business, all records go to the BATF.

So there is something of a precedent.

Brad

> 
> Speaking for myself....
> 
>  
> 
> Peter Trei
> Senior Software Engineer
> Purveyor Development Team                                
> Process Software Corporation
> http://www.process.com
> trei@process.com
>