At 3:35 AM 12/6/95, Anonymous wrote:

Tim May 12/5/95 6:25 PM:

...

One "defensible" (and maybe even good) reason is because someone with government clearance can then be prosecuted for leaking what they know, whereas ordinary citizens are harder to prosecute for this. I doubt this is the main reason, but it makes a certain kind of sense.

Nice point, though I too doubt that's the reason: if *every* agent needed to be cleared, then this clearance stipulation would serve nicely, but if only *one* at every escrow agency needs to be cleared...

No, I didn't make that basic a logical blunder. What I was thinking, even if I didn't go into it, is that the "cleared" agent would be the one within the office who would actually handle the surveillance. But I do think the more basic reason is really that the intelligence agencies want a direct channel to "their" guy. I'm really pleased to hear about the 20% attendance. Nothing trivializes a program more than being ignored. --Tim May Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."