1997-09-03 - Re: Clinton, Commerce, and Crypto scandal

Header Data

From: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: bab6bdb407c1a62015a30cde7013faa0bc770a6f7fc009509e75a1d15a8ac6de
Message ID: <3.0.2.32.19970903010757.0305ab88@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Reply To: <Pd+GYWt/DaNdTTMhZshxHQ==@bureau42.ml.org>
UTC Datetime: 1997-09-03 10:59:51 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:59:51 +0800

Raw message

From: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:59:51 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Clinton, Commerce, and Crypto scandal
In-Reply-To: <Pd+GYWt/DaNdTTMhZshxHQ==@bureau42.ml.org>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970903010757.0305ab88@popd.ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 01:56 AM 9/3/97 GMT, bureau42 Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>Ira Sockowitz moved from commerce to SBA taking a few things with him:
>
>An excerpt:
>
>The classified information Sockowitz took was so sensitive it threatened
>to put the National Security Agency, or NSA, out of business, because the
>files included information about encryption chips (which safeguard
>computers) that the spy agency itself can't break. These are files for
>which high-tech companies lust and countries would kill. 
>
>http://members.aol.com/beachbt/socko.htm

Tim Maier's Insight article isn't all that bad, but he obviously doesn't have
a good perspective on crypto technology, and unfortunately none of the
web pages involved contain good email pointers to their authors :-)
	(On the other hand, one of the references said Dave Sobel has copies.)

Encryption technology the NSA can't break is easy; you've been
able to get PGP for about 5 years from Internet sites at
Oxford and various other Finnish, Italian, and North American 
universities, plus lots of good books and conference proceedings.
Far more interesting is insight into what they _can_ break :-)
Also, the documentation about NSA market studies on encryption,
strategies on controlling it, etc., would be amusing to read.

I can't comment usefully on Uranium shipments or satellite technology.
However, some of the writing about Lockheed and Iridium was a bit
on the sensationalist side.  In particular, the assertion that
Lockheed only gave one political contribution in 1993, before this
scandal and (mostly) before Iridium, vs. lots in 1995-1996, is silly.
1992 was an election year, 1994 was Congressional elections,
and 1993 was the mostly quiet time in between.  Given the numbers of
major defense procurements Lockheed's been involved in over the years,
I'd be surprised if they aren't making political contributions like
everyone else in the industry -- they just make them at times they're useful,
and Iridium is just another project.

#			Thanks;  Bill
# Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp
#   (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies.  Thanks.)






Thread