re: NIST GAK export meeting, sv

["Peter Trei" <trei@process.com>]

"Hieronymous" says:
>       (Thanks for the summary, Pat.)
>       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, but I *can* think of a publically
> indefensible reason for it -- to facilitate those spooky non-court wiretap
> authorizations that've been alluded to in the fine print of the GAK
> proposals.

This is probably one reason. Another is that they could shut down an
escrow agent at a moment's notice by pulling the clearances. We
haven't seen the other requirements, but an interesting question is
what happens when an escrow agent goes out of business.

Speaking for myself....

 

Peter Trei
Senior Software Engineer
Purveyor Development Team                                
Process Software Corporation
http://www.process.com
trei@process.com