From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 19:33:59 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: re: NIST GAK export meeting, sv
Message-ID: <199512060335.EAA20054@utopia.hacktic.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Tim May 12/5/95 6:25 PM:


>>      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,    <<etc.>>
>
>One "defensible" (and maybe even good) reason is because someone with
>government clearance can then be prosecuted for leaking what they know,
>whereas ordinary citizens are harder to prosecute for this. I doubt this is
>the main reason, but it makes a certain kind of sense.

      Nice point, though I too doubt that's the reason: if *every* agent
needed to be cleared, then this clearance stipulation would serve nicely,
but if only *one* at every escrow agency needs to be cleared...

>But there are other more interesting links between Secret clearances and
>wiretaps.
>
>The "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" meets in Arlington, VA as the
>need arises to authorize wiretaps in private, <interesting but etc.>

>>      Of course, just because escrow agents would be required to hire
>>*someone* with a SECRET clearance doesn't mean that *anyone* with a SECRET
>>clearance would fill the bill. <etc.>

>Many think tanks and defense contractors have "sheep-dipped" retired
>intelligence officials working for them and continuing to report (in
>various ways) to their former paymasters.
>
>Sometimes these sheep-dipped agents are just there to keep tabs on what's
>going on, sometimes they're there to nudge these companies in certain
>directions, and sometimes they are actually running "deniable" applications
>from the private sector. (Recall Hughes, Air America, Castle Bank, etc.)
>
>I can imagine that if some companies talked about in connection with
>certain questionable activities (Banker's Trust, Bank of America,
>Wackenhut, SAIC, etc.) were to bid for the contract to be a GAK Agent, then
>there would be contacts back to the intelligence agencies.

      Organizations like SAIC seem like "naturals" for GAK escrow agents
-- and they're a forgone conclusion as far as spookery is concerned. What
troubles me is the suggestion that *every* agent *must* hire someone who
might answer to a higher authority, as it were. And what troubles me more
is watching this paragovernment's transparent efforts to reproduce itself
step by step, always trying to elude efforts to make it accountable or
subordinate to civil authorities.

>But most GAK accesses would be handled through normal channels, albeit secret.

      Of course. But most cops and prosecutors haven't developed the
"national security" verbal tic. Yet.

      GAK stinks, but this security-clearance stipulation *really* stinks.
      Of course, I'm preaching to the choir...

Hieronymous

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMMUMXL3g0mNE55u1AQHR0wIAj/86ga/1T0FJ7gZt5ZVwlCLt4pq2g0Nt
QpoDWlul6q9ub51k3wwA6Kn1np3NMoYpjLS/bdPew0XUBMJpQs/l/Q==
=AdMm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----