From: tmp@netcom.com
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 94 17:37:48 PDT
To: tmp@netcom.com
Subject: Re: nsa digital cash?
In-Reply-To: <199404072155.AA10615@access1.digex.net>
Message-ID: <199404080038.RAA22910@mail.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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