From: mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.misc,talk.politics.misc,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Some facts about the NSA, whee.
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:24:13 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Washington ULTRIX Resource Center

jgm@ais.org (jim miller) writes:

>Great, another implication or out-and-out statement that someone
>arguing against you is irrational, or an idiot.

	Nonono.... That was a direct response to earlier remarks you
made. In that case, it's not accurate to assume I was implying that
*anyone* who disagrees with me is irrational or an idiot. I was
only addressing your opinions.

>>	Opinions are neither valid nor invalid. They're just opinions
>>and you can agree with them or disagree with them. On the other end
>>of the spectrum are facts. I actually know something about the NSA
>>and have been there and am even married to someone who worked there
>>for many years. I work for someone who used to work there. I have
>>been there and I actually know something about the place. Now, those
>>are facts. I base my opinions on them. You're perfectly free to base
>>your opinions on the National Enquirer, USENET, "Puzzle Palace" and
>>The Far Side, if you like.
>
>Real cordial to your opponent here, too.  No Marcus, I base all
>my opinions on sayings I glean from novelty toilet paper.

	Ok, that's reasonable. I suspected something like either
"Puzzle Palace" or novelty toilet paper, but I didn't want to
sound too insulting in case you'd actually only been forming your
opinions based on the novelty toilet paper. Hopefully, you read
the print version, not the "Classics Illustrated Novelty Toilet Paper"
issue of "Spooks are watching you at this very moment: the story
of the NSA." The pictures in that issue are a bit too lurid and
not for the weak-of-stomach.

>Your "facts" and the sources of them which you tout so loudly
>only show how partial you are in considering the NSA.
>[...]  Those "facts" don't mean you
>know a damn thing about the NSA's objectives or methodology, and
>explain why you fail to objectively consider it as a potentially
>dangerous organization in a historical context.

	I mentioned where I learned the little bits I do know
about NSA, only so that people might be able to judge whether I
might actually know something about the organization. Whether
you choose to infer a bias is something I cannot control, even
if I cared to.

	Actually, other than your statement above, in which
you indicate that your knowledge of NSA and how it works is
based on novelty toilet paper, I haven't hear a single scrap
that might lead me to believe that you know *anything* about
the NSA at all, other than what you read on USENET. So, whether
you're biassed or not is irrelevant, if you're completely or
nearly completely ignorant. Ignorance and bias tend to go hand
in hand.

	Of course, you're intellectually honest enough to
argue the rather weak position of "historical context" as if
there is some scientific principle at work whereby if something
happens a whole lot in the past that it's likely to happen
in the future. Certainly, past event prove that secret agencies
have been known to be a pain in the butt. That's all logic
can allow you to say. Anything more than that is simply a
witch hunt.

>History of
>well-documented abuses by the various US government organizations
>that conduct activities secretly.  History of such organizations
>in other countries and drawing pertinent analogies.  Open-mindedness
>helps a lot, too.

	*Which* various US government organizations, pray? You
might have a leg to stand on if you claim the FBI was assembling
secret dossiers in the 60's and 70's (they were) but after all,
*some* of the folks they were assembling dossiers on *were*
loudly advocating a violent revolution....

	Arguments based on history are really dangerous. How about
this one:
	The Knights Templar were a semi-secret international military
brotherhood, which was (at its peak) tremendously wealthy and very
powerful. Many of the Temple's activities placed it in the role of
providing a form of central banking throughout the crusades. I.e:
one could draw a draft against the Temple in Paris, march to Kerak
Des Chevaliers in Syria, and "cash" it. Many of the Temple's activities
including their prayers and rituals were closely guarded secrets. To
secure their banking they used code (not cryptography, as I am sure
your toilet tissue has taught you the distinctions) which was considered
rather impressive for its day. Finally, the Temple was accused of
witchcraft and satanism, among other things, and all its assets
were seized, the grand master, Jacques De Molay was tortured and
burned at the stake, and the Knights Templars were no more. All
their gold vanished into the royal coffers, too.

	So, based on history, there is clear evidence that secret
organizations need to fear the government, or branches of the
government they don't answer to (The Templars answered to The Pope,
not to mere kings, so arguably they were under the highest
authority in Christendom). Are you trying to tell me that there is
a historic trend that I should warn the poor guys at Ft. Meade
that they might get tortured and burned at the stake?

	The purpose of studying history is not so you can predict
the present or the future. Yes, it's worth looking at trends, and
being aware of patterns - but not in ignorance.

mjr.