Re: NIST GAK export meeting, sv

[Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>]

Anonymous writes:
>What
>troubles me is the suggestion that *every* agent *must* hire someone who
>might answer to a higher authority, as it were. And what troubles me more
>is watching this paragovernment's transparent efforts to reproduce itself
>step by step, always trying to elude efforts to make it accountable or
>subordinate to civil authorities.

Whoa.  Time-out.  Having a SECRET clearance does not imply that one is
answerable to the government.  You don't get a clearance independent of
a job.  You have to be hired for the job, then the investigators look
for anything that might disqualify you, then you get the clearance.

A key-escrow company could hire anyone they want.  Assuming that
they're approved for a SECRET billet when they're approved as an escrow
agent, the *company* designates the individual the government is to
investigate.

The only leverage the government really has is the right to take the
clearance away.  The person (and probably the company) could sue for
its return if it was really done as a pressure tactic.  The guidelines
for approving or denying such clearances are pretty specific.