From: tmp@netcom.com
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 94 09:33:47 PDT
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: nsa digital cash?
In-Reply-To: <199404062116.AA13470@access3.digex.net>
Message-ID: <199404071634.JAA05501@netcom9.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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>