Re: nsa digital cash?

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>]

> 
> 
> erik hughes writes:
> >>i doubt it will be long before there
> >>are some official government agencies developing the official u.s.
> >>digital cash system. 
> >
> >This statement betrays an enormous ignorance at the scale of Federal
> >involvement in retail transaction systems.  The Fed operates Fedwire,
> >for moving federal funds around, and also does check clearing at the
> >national level.  All the retail level transaction systems are in
> >private hands, be they ATM networks and consortia or the credit card
> >companies.
> 
> so? what's your point? my point was that the nsa was a prime candidate
> agency for trying to *expand* the current federal role in the cash
> system. are you saying the federal government already has a `digital
> cash system'? well, yes, i guess in some sense.

I don't think this is consistent with the approach the NSA has 
traditionally taken, nor do I think it is consistent with the general 
attitude for the proper place of intelligence agencies.  See below.


> what guarantees that `retail level transaction systems' will always be
> in private hands? don't you think the nsa would really get their jollies
> from building the offical Secure Cash Register System with clipper
> chips built in? isn't this pretty much what they are trying to do with
> `private' computers right now?

What intelligence agency would want to use a system that was obviously in 
federal control?

Why do you think BCCI was so popular with intelligence agencies?  The KEY 
effort in any agency is money laundering.  This is by definition the 
primary function of intelligence agencies, to bring funds to bear 
properly and quietly on projects and goals that don't sit well in 
public.  Using an "offical [sic] Secure Cash Register System" is shooting 
an intelligence agency and all the benefits of quiet transactions in the foot.

Rule #X:  Intelligence agencies use foreign banks frequently.

> 
> are you saying you don't expect the federal government to expand their
> role in cash systems? or that it is already as large as it can get?

Lumping the Federal system in with intelligence agencies in this 
context betrays significant ignorance in the structure of modern government.

Between this and your misconception of the Federal financial structure 
that Eric was so quick to point out, I think you should keep your day job 
Det, or is this it?

> we have to fight off these encroaches onto private territory wherever
> they happen. clipper was *not* a surprise given the past nsa history.

Clipper is a HUGE surprise considering the NSA history.

Two words:
Too Public.

I attribute the public outing of the NSA to an [unnamed] high administration 
official with no concept of the proper application of intelligence 
agencies except as a tool to support his dwindling programs.

I have a tremendous respect for the Office of the Presidency however.

The fact that the NSA is publicly supporting clipper betrays fear by the 
administration, the improper use of the agency, and a great deal of 
ignorance in intelligence in general.  I might add that in my personal 
opinion it is a perversion.

> it would *not* be surprising if the nsa got into the digital cash
> design area in the future, or expanded its role in the current one.

Yes it would.  This is not the function of the NSA.  The NSA either 
performs communications and signal intelligence or functions as an 
appropriations agency for secure communications channels for government.  
The contemporary trend to use the agency for anything from public 
relations and government regulations is a mistake of application by the 
current administration.  The NSA is enjoying its moment in the spotlight 
for the time, but at the core this is a secret agency.  One of two 
things will happen (and I would argue one of these already has)

1>  The responsibility for the darker activities the NSA is (was) 
responsible for will be switched.
2>  The NSA will grow tired of its moments in the limelight and realize 
that serious business needs to be attended to.

The NSA is always better off when no one is talking about the NSA.

An NSA that participates in the public restructuring of a basic financial 
system on any level beyond the development of the technology is just 
not in line with an agency that has better security on the local power 
stations than the President has in general.
 
> besides, who the hell are you to call me `enormously ignorant', 
> vacuum brain! <g> you act like you own the list or something. (oh no,
> not that thread again-- cypherpunks list as a volleyball game....
> SPIKE!!!) 
>

Your petty attempts at punctuation filtration leave much to be desired.
We all know you, just use caps ok?

> `betraying an enormous ignorance', 
> --tmp

You said it, I did not, except for above.

> (erik hughes's OTHER testicle <g>)
> 

I don't think so.
Eric's testicles are surely much larger than you.

-uni- (Dark)