From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 95 00:55:26 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: NSA Realists v. Nuts (Was: Re: Crypto APIs)
In-Reply-To: <199510050532.WAA16394@blob.best.net>
Message-ID: <199510050757.DAA22982@ducie.cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Matt Blaze writes:
# It seems best to encourage the realistic side of NSA as much as possible...

James Donald writes:
> Why? Surely the realists are more dangerous than the nuts.

One way to look at it is this:

Could a Nutty NSA carry out its Nutty Agenda ?

If they could, then we'd better hope someone at Fort Meade does a better job
of promoting a more Realistic (read: free-strong-crypto-friendlier) Agenda.

If they couldn't, then we should focus our energies against the Realistic
Agenda, on the theory that the best NSA agenda is no agenda at all.

(I'm assuming that a Realistic Agenda has at least as good a chance of success
as a Nutty Agenda. If neither has a chance of success, then the distribution
of power among factions in the NSA is obviously irrelevant.)

Personally, I'm plenty cynical enough to fret about a possibility that the
Nuts might achieve their aims to some significant degree. So I'm inclined to
agree with Matt that cheering on the Realists is a wise strategy. 

I'm not sure how much luck we'll have convincing each other about the likely
outcome of the imposition of a Nutty Agenda on the U.S. Looks to me as though
they've imposed some pretty Nutty stuff on us already. Sure, some folks flaunt
the ITARs, but many (like me) fear them. Chalk up a win for the NSA Nuts in my
book.

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>