Re: one reaction: early FOIA results

[bear@eagle.fsl.noaa.gov (Bear Giles)]

"L. Detweiler" writes
>The
>arguments `against' are even labelled `true' and `persuasive'. I wonder
>if any of this means anything. It could just be a gimmick to suggest
>that `all concerns were fairly balanced in the proposal'.

It's always a dangerous strategy to recognize your opponent has a
legitimate position.  If they dismissed our concerns with hand-waving
they could also defuse Congressional (or other) inquiries with an appeal
to authority; but with these documents they've acknowledged the
legitimacy of our concerns.

>Does anyone
>suppose that the important military aides anticipate FOIA requests and
>come up with bland and benign documents to satisfy them?

You mean they _wouldn't_?  Refusal to provide all documents and the
dates of these documents (i.e., not during the initial design stages)
suggests that they could well be covers for other documents.

If nothing else, I would like to see correspondence at the same level
from a year ago, back when it appeared Bush was a shoo-in for reelection.
I suspect we will find a substantially different tone....

>For the first time we have an official confirmation that the original
>intent of Clipper (or similar technology) was to make it *mandatory*. 

I don't think we have _any_ information about the *original* intent.
We have some indications of what they intended after Clinton was
elected, but none of these documents are from the Bush era.

>>at least AT&T has been
>>reported willing to do so (having been suitably incentivised by
>>promises of Government purchases).
>
>`incentivised' -- a cute euphemism for collusion.  I wonder to what
>extent they were `incentivised'.

Why not accept this at face value -- the government asked AT&T how
many phones they would need to purchase to make it worthwhile for
AT&T to make the things, AT&T gave them a number, and the government
said "Okay!"

>>(U)	The President has also directed that the fact that law
>>enforcement officials will have access to the keys will not be
>>concealed from the public.  National security officials are not
>>mentioned.
>
>eeks, that sounds amazingly ominous. Why would they say in one sentence
>`law enforcement officials have access to the keys' and then in the
>next `the security of the scheme for national security purposes is not 
>revealed'?

I read this as "National security officials will have access to the keys,
but this will not be revealed to the public."

Nothing I hadn't already assumed.  :-(

>`narcotraffickers' -- doesn't sound as hysterically paranoid as `drug
>dealers'. 

No, "narcotraffickers" are the people who bring the drugs into the 
country.  Apparently the Feds have decided to leave persecution of
alleged drug dealers (note tenses) to local authorities using
forfeiture laws, while the Feds concentrate on the people bringing
the drugs into the country and the major distribution networks.

>>Thus far, widespread availability has not
>>led to widespread use.
>
>hm, how could that be? It wouldn't have anything to do with draconian
>export regulations, would it?

More likely the tendency of people to pretend "this can't happen to
me!"  After all, most people only deal with other residents of North
America and there are no internal cryptographic restrictions.  Yet.


Bear Giles