Re: nsa digital cash?

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

> 
> 
> unicorn@access.digex.net
> makes several claims about the nsa, clipper, and money laundering
> that i find patently absurd. my source for nsa information is mostly
> bamford. 

Your sources are mostly limited.

> no where in the book is any mention made of money laundering.

Therefore none exists.

> i find preposterous the claim that the nsa is involved in money 
> laundering. unicorn's argument is entirely by analogy-- the nsa is an
> intelligence organization, money laundering is highly useful to
> intelligence organizations, therefore the nsa is laundering money. <smirk>

I provided several examples of how money laundering is applied to 
COMINT/SIGINT operations.  You chose to ignore them.

> >> i reiterate my point: designing a secure digital cash system would be
> >> a key area that the nsa would be interested in.
> >
> >This was not your point, your point was that the NSA would control such a 
> >system.  This point is also flawed.  The NSA may create the technical 
> >means, but logistics are not in the cards.
> 
> how are the logistics different than the technical means? if the nsa
> designs key parts of a digital cash infrastructure, don't you think that
> counts as `the logistics'?

No, it does not.
The logistics are an executive function.  How to implement the program, 
how to introduce it to the public etc.  If the NSA was behind this, you 
will be able to explain why the press release was done through the White 
House.

> >> in fact, i think it is
> >> highly likely that they have already designed significant parts of the
> >> existing u.s. transaction infrastructure at certain levels. (they
> >> vetted DES, right?!)
> >
> >This is a point entirely separate from the above.
> >This is what the NSA does, it does not create institutions for public use.
> 
> what is clipper? it is designed to become institutionalized wiretapping,
> wouldn't you say?

No I would not.
I would say that it is designed to maintain the COMINT/SIGINT ability 
domestically and abroad.  Wiretapping is a law enforcement concern 
handled by the FBI.  You'll be looking for the Digital Telephony Bill.

> >> (references? would be appreciated) that is essentially what clipper
> >> is intended to do.
> >
> >Wrong.
> >Clipper is intended to maintain the COMINT/SIGINT ability domestically.  
> 
> wrong. nsa has no authority to do comint and sigint domestically and
> there is no evidence they do so. some leaks into the vacuum cleaner but
> there is no design to capture it specifically.

You source for this factually flawed information?

> >Intelligence would never risk overt control of domestic financial 
> >institutions that were not dedicated for use.  A silent involvement with 
> >a foreign bank through a front is much more efficient.
> 
> this amounts to flimsy psychoanalysis of the nsa. i am not claiming the
> nsa is going to start a covert money laundering campaign in the u.s.
> i am saying that the design of a digital cash infrastructure would be
> immensely appealing for them to study, and i will bet you anything that
> there are parts of it dedicated to exactly that purpose. maybe they
> are in a very preliminary stage, but the trends in the nsa suggest
> this is another thing they would be overjoyed to glom onto.

You now resort to Sternlight type tactics.  Change your assertion to fit 
the mood.  If anything the NSA may design technologies or integrate 
existing technologies that may have Digital Cash applications.  Asserting 
that they will be the institution primarily responsible for implementing 
nationwide digital cash flies in the face of history and theory.

> [`nsa is unstructured so it can expand influence']
> >Where do you get this from?  The NSA is perhaps the most structured 
> >intelligence agency in the United States.  They certainly know their bounds 
> >better than the other collection arms, and I won't even mention the HUMINT
> >people.
> 
> ridiculous assertion. if they `knew their bounds' why did they come up with
> clipper? why do we have the domestic surveillance abuses of the 60's and
> 70's? i am beginning to think you are purposely writing so stupidly as to
> make my arguments so patently superior, that you may be my own `straight
> man' or `puppet' (hee, hee)

Clipper and the design thereof is entirely within the bounds of the NSA 
mission.  I have outlined it for you three times.

You refer to domestic surveillance abuses here and seem to forget that 
four paragraphs ago you were asserting there is no evidence of such 
activity.  Take your Lithium please. 

> [clipper]
> >I repeat the above, this is program from the 
> >EXECUTIVE branch.
> 
> this is just so far out of touch with reality that i can't even touch it.
> first, consider that this program originated with bush-- if the nsa were
> doing it only for the president, why shouldn't they stop now that he is
> out of office?

You seem to propose that all ongoing projects are scrapped in 
intelligence agencies when a new administration takes the reigns.

> secondly, vice president gore is quoted as saying that
> some of the nsa decisions, i.e. on key escrow agencies, were `not properly
> vetted' (he was quite upset, ask stanton mccandlish). moreover, you are
> implying that the clinton administration is driving its development now.
> what have you heard from clinton about clipper? personally i haven't 
> heard him say too much about it.

Delegating the public relations to the vice president is an insulating 
tactic.  Again, read some Political Science, then return.

> >I'll leave it up to you to decide how the above differs from Clipper and 
> >the NSA's involvement.  Your failure to identify the distinction just adds 
> >to my assessment that you have no background in intelligence or financial 
> >institutions and thus have no business at all making this argument which 
> >requires no knowledge but in these two areas.
> 
> you're right. i'm totally ignorant of all historical facts and the nsa.

The first step in getting cured is admitting you have a problem.

> the poor nsa was suckered into clipper and public relations by that
> nasty grinch bush. if it weren't for him, all would be well. in fact,
> probably the skipjack algorithm itself was invented by bush. i bet he
> came up with the idea of key escrow too. how could we all have been
> so blind?!!

More like:
The NSA announced some new technology and potential applications.  The 
Bush administration directed further work to be done, and some general 
guidelines, the Clinton administration continued the work and fast 
tracked the program in conjunction with the current frenzy over 
Superhighways.

> (btw, you don't seem to state that you have even read bamford)

Your reliance on a single source is your downfall.

> >Now let's go back to your "NIST" front theory.  If the policy is already 
> >in the open and attributed to NIST, why must the NSA be publically 
> >involved?  Surely the NIST front was created to mask involvement in some 
> >way yes?  If this is so, as your reading of the "several key agencies" 
> >clause seems to suggest, why is the NSA talking publicly?  
> 
> they are not `talking publicly' in a basic sense. 
> they are using the NIST as a mouthpiece.

You will explain the NSA presence at conventions and debates how?

> >Why is a NSA 
> >public relations official straight out of Q43 going to conferences?
> 
> because the NSA invented clipper, and as much as they hate it, they know
> that PR is basic to its potential acceptance (hee, hee, as if such a 
> thing is possible)

Funny, I thought NIST was the mouthpiece?

> >Mr. Sternlight, care to comment here?
> 
> i will not stoop to your barnyard tactics.
> 
> >The NSA is being used here.  How can you reconcile the attitude and 
> >culture the NSA has with your insistence that the NSA must go public when 
> >even you admit a public front has already be established and the NSA 
> >need not be involved?  
> 
> oh yes, it is that evil wolf Bush that is manipulating the poor old NSA
> red-riding hood. the NSA wouldn't touch clipper with a ten foot pole
> but they are being forced too. he threatened to take away their pensions
> and their decoder rings.

No it is the current administration using the NSA to support a program 
that they feel is dying.  It is the current administration that has no 
idea how to properly utilize intelligence agencies.  Anyone who has 
studied or practiced intelligence will tell you that one of the major 
problems in the field is getting the leadership to listen.  Asserting the 
intelligence is in control of the situation is out of hand. 

> >My whole point is that the NSA is being manipulated as a public relations 
> >tool and this is silly and betrays a total lack of intelligence 
> >experience by whoever is directing them.  Gee, I wonder, who's program is 
> >it now that the NSA is supporting?  Who might stand to gain from having 
> >that program succeed?  Who is probably then directing the NSA to support 
> >the program in public?  
> 
> you seem to have more faith in the NSA than some people have in God.
> your premise is (1) clipper is a lousy idea (2) clipper involves PR
> (3) the NSA is one of those *superb* and *way cool* intelligence agencies
> that would never do anything stupid (4) therefore the nsa is having its
> arm twisted into inventing clipper. oooh, what a stark tragedy. someone
> call shakespeare so we can immortalize this drama.

I have a great deal of faith in the NSA.  I state this without concern.
I also have a great deal of respect for intelligence in general and I am 
of a real belief that intelligence has a place in modern society.  
Intelligence is always doing stupid things, no question about it, but 
usually it is because POLITICS tries to manipulate intelligence and push 
square pegs through round holes.  The NSA is having it's arm twisted to 
play public relations on this.

> >Suggesting that Clipper, including the policy decisions, is an NSA 
> >creation is ignorant.  The technology might be an NSA invention, or 
> >theft, the Clipper program is not.
> 
> what planet are you from? allright, it is an interesting theory, but
> it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. are you claiming that bush
> was the person that prodded the nsa into doing clipper? 

See above analysis of the potential timeline.

>why are they
> then still plugging away at it? what `unnamed government official'
> outside of the NSA has anything to gain from clipper? 

You really have no clue do you?

> clipper reeks
> of the NSA. the skipjack algorithm, the key escrow, etc. all the central
> components of the idea just *scream* NSA. the NSA has tried to do this
> type of thing in the past with computers.

No argument here.

> >Your theory that the NSA seeks to control federal financial transactions 
> >and to develop a digital cash system to further that goal has nothing to 
> >do with the text on a bill.  You think the NSA established the ATM 
> >network outside of the DES derivative it may use? 
> 
> no, but i think it is likely that parts of the federal funds transfer system
> use technology ultimately due to NSA. also, if they get to design the 
> algorithm (DES) what more could they want? you seem to conflate 
> *building an infrastructure for digital cash* with *controlling banks*.
> the nsa could easily do the former without the latter. another `voluntary'
> system. (hee, hee)

Again, this is a stark departure from your original assertion.
You seem to attribute to the NSA a desire for active regulation.

> >You treat the intelligence agencies as a separate policy making arm of 
> >the government not as a tool of the executive.
> 
> to use your own claim-- you say that intelligence agencies use money
> laundering as a systematic part of their existence. now, tell me how
> many presidents approve of that.

All of them.  Any President who uses intelligence knows that money has to 
be laundered.  You think the bay of pigs was done through the U.S. Treasury?
Have I mared the image of your liberal hero President of the era because 
I suggest he might have known about money laundering by the intelligence 
agencies?  Wake up and smell the coffee.  Open your door and look around.

> the same argument you use about money laundering -- that intelligence
> agencies need an untraceable fund source -- can be made to say that they
> are operating independently of presidential (executive) control.

Takes money to make money tmp.
This wont last long if the executive takes away funding.
Are you asserting the NSA and the CIA and Military intelligence operate 
without the authority of the President on such a large scale as to 
include the development of secure cash systems for domestic use?

> >The NSA may have suggested that certain technologies were going to loosen 
> >their grip on domestic COMINT/SIGINT.  How this makes the NSA a policy 
> >arm is beyond me, and I think even you.
> 
> `suggested'? i think clipper amounts to much more than a `suggestion'.
> and it is clearly an nsa-originating policy.

I refuse to argue this point any longer.  NSA does not make policy.

> >I might add that limiting cryptography is hardly a goal mutually 
> >exclusive with secrecy.
> 
> for the nsa it is. if they have policies that limit export of cryptography,
> and that impedes software manufacturing in this country, they have taken
> a controversial stand that is going to be subjected to the limelight.
> if they propose `you must use our algorithm with a trapdoor' they are
> inviting ridicule. what kind of sternlight are you, anyway?!!!

The NSA does not make export policy, only adds to the list of restricted 
items.  How many time must I repeat this?

I suppose I'm not a very good Sternlight.

> 
> Compare:
> > yes, but they are finding that trying to be secret and accomplish the
> > goal of limiting cryptography are mutually exlusive goals.
> 
> With:
> >i repeat, no one in the NSA wants to `be in the limelight'
> > and clipper is no such attempt to do so
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> right. clipper is a contradiction in design goals: (1) continue the nsa
> mission of secrecy and oversight of cryptography (2) promote an algorithm 
> to the public.

These are not the goals, neither are they contradictory.

> >It leaves Clipper in trouble.  Never involve an intelligence agency in 
> >public affairs that might attract press and public opinion.  Silly.  Who 
> >might be responsible for this?  What a clod.
> 
> the nsa is the world's greatest collection of clods.

No, that would be the individuals involved in the policy decisions.
But I do have a great deal of respect for the Office of the Presidency.

> >But I do have a great deal of respect for the Office of the Presidency.
> 
> uhm, the bush or clinton one? you are clearly not an atheist, you believe
> in the great Intelligence and Executive Gods.

Yes, I do believe in the ability of the intelligence agencies under the 
direction of a well organized and knowing executive to accomplish much good.
Such is not the case today.

> >> do you think they will abandon it? that is the only way
> >> they can stop being the object of widespread public ridicule.
> >
> >Which is why, in part, that the publicity was a mistake.
> 
> oh right. how are they going to get private companies to use their algorithms
> without `publicity'? i suppose they could start a plan of having a secret
> corps of spooks sneak into offices after hours and swap CPUs or something...

Again, it should not be the NSA who is involved in the publicity.

Were this done correctly it would have been handled such:
(Assuming the administration was so bold as to attempt such an operation 
in the domestic sphere which is part of the reason the initiative is such 
a clusterfuck)

1>  Establish front technology research company.
2>  Announce breakthrough development through company (Clipper)
3>  Pass down NSA approval of the process and discuss NSA involvement in 
the TECHNOLOGY development without fanfare, and with minimal connection 
to NSA.
4>  Create administrative agency to insulate President and Congress from 
repercussions (NIST)
5>  Implement Clipper with NIST and no further NSA involvement.

Unfortunately the executive branch got it wrong in planning to use the 
NSA as a PR entity.


> >> if
> >> you think the nsa cares what the presidents [sic] thinks, you are mostly 
> >mistaken.
> >> the nsa cares about how to get the president to think what they want him to
> >> think.
> >
> >Are you arguing that the NSA is unaccountable?
> 
> essentially, yes. bamford has entire sections dedicated to this 
> observation. it is their fundamental attitude exemplified in quotes
> all the way up to the directors.

I rest my case here.
 
> >Eric has more balls than you ever will my friend.
> 
> really? i have two. if he has more than that, i'd call it a mutation. <g>
> 
> ^^^^ oops, accidentally narrowed my identity to 50% of the population....
> 
> uni, thanks for playing my cyberspatial straight man, but i really have to 
> stop this detweilerish sillyness.  if i say anything more to you, people
> will begin to get suspicious. it doesn't help at all that you are 
> posting pseudonymously ... <g>
> 
> pseudonymously yours,
> ---tmp
> 
> 

tmp: 

You betray your ignorance yet again.

You battle over the same small points, argue details, and contradict 
yourself in theory repeatedly in your messages.  You cite one source and 
refuse to provide any real backup or any theoretical basis for your 
assertions that will survive a raindrop.

It is clear that your experience in both intelligence and finance is 
limited if existent.

It is clear that you have convinced yourself of an outcome and will 
continue to create facts and theory from whole cloth to support them.

It is clear that you are not open to intellectual discussion.

Therefore I refuse to continue.  Considering the lack of intellectual 
content in your last post, this response was a gift.  Don't expect 
another one.  You have extracted quite enough education at my expense.

I suggest you read up on intelligence agencies.  Consider taking some 
undergraduate level classes in intelligence and then moving to the 
graduate level.  Most of all, I suggest that you, in future, open your mind.


-uni- (Dark)