Gore A Gettysburg for GENERAL "STONEWALL" RENO"

The Clinton administration has stated several times that they have no intention to nationalize the computer security industry. In fact, the administration recently stated that they did not back FBI Director Louie Freeh's testimony before the Senate last week. The heat caused by Director Freeh, who testfied that he needed "mandatory" domestic key escrow, certainly did not make the Clinton administration happy. Thus, the Clinton administration quickly backed off from the draconian suggestions made before Senators Kyl and Feinstein.

On May 17, 1997 SOFTWAR submitted a Freedom of Information request (FOIA) to the Commerce Department for "Legislation, proposed legislation, plans, documents, notes or meetings on 'mandating' government solutions in reference to encryption policy, efforts to nationalize using covert actions or other means to obtain control of domestic encryption."

On September 4, 1997, the Commerce Department responded. "We have located two records that we believe to be responsive to your request," wrote Philip Greene, from the Commerce Department Office of the Chief Counsel for Technology. "However, these records originated with agencies other than Commerce. As a result we have sent copies of these records to the two other agencies (the National Security Council (NSC) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)) for consultation (in the case of NSC) or direct response to you (in the case of OMB)."

What does this mean? First, this proves that plans to nationalize the computer security industry not only exist but they originated in the White House. For the administration to claim that they have no such plans now falls under the category of "bold faced lie". Both the OMB and the NSC are entities that live within the walls of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The Department of Commerce has just admitted these plans came directly from the highest levels of our government.

The fact that OMB (management and budget) was involved also means that budgetary (e.g. money) requirements to mandate were sought. In fact, SOFTWAR obtained SECRET documents written in April of 1993 by NSC Director Tony Lake who directing all agencies and entities on his list of power brokers to draw up plans to mandate the government solution. Worse, in case the overt actions failed, other methods (e.g. "covert") also were documented by the US Government to obtain control of domestic encryption. Tony Lake, if you recall, failed to win the Directorship of the CIA and was forced to withdraw his nomination under a cloud of discredit and disgrace. The secret White House memo was directed to the highest levels of the Federal government, including the Directors of the OMB, CIA, FBI, NSA, and to the Secretaries of Defense, State and Commerce. In fact, two other persons were also cued in on the secret plans to seize the crypto industry ... Janet Reno and Al Gore.

Perhaps, it should be made clear to everyone that Ms. Reno and her Department of Justice now have a case of severe conflict. Janet Reno admitted to the press that she discussed "encryption" policy with Al Gore. The Justice Department should have advised VP Gore on his efforts to purchase the patents to RSA Inc.'s digital signatures for the US Government. The Justice Department Anti-Trust Division had to review the bid by RSA to merge with Security Dynamics. In fact, the Justice Department issued their okay to allow the merger to take place. The Department of Justice also could have killed the RSA deal with Communist China to export advanced US encryption technology directly to the PRC. Thus, Janet Reno and her Department were major (and active) players in government dealings with RSA/SDI. It is clearly a conflict of interest for the Justice Department to investigate itself in criminal actions.

What criminal actions?

In November of 1995, VP Al Gore made a call from the White House to a DNC supporter named Sanford Robertson. Al made that call on the taxpayer's tab. Sanford Robertson, obliged by coughing up $100,000 - some $80,000 going to soft money and $20,000 directly into Al Gore's campaign fund. Sanford Robertson and his investment company, Robertson and Stephens, are also major holders in Security Dynamics (SDI). In fact, Robertson and Stephens sponsored SDI's stock issues. Robertson and Stephens currently sell (and hold) SDI stock. Robertson and Stephens even wrote the merger document between SDI and RSA for a tidy sum. Clearly Mr. Robertson had a vested interest in RSA's merger and their success in exporting encryption to China.

Vice President Al Gore would call Sanford Robertson and seek hard, cold cash at the same time the RSA China export deal and the RSA/SDI merger were pending before the administration. In fact, the donation was delivered to the DNC only days before the US Government would quietly approve the RSA crypto export to China. Al Gore had direct contact and sought direct donations from the same company that he had previously sought to negotiate with, acting as an official of the US Government. By law the same official CANNOT also seek monetary compensation.



All content COPYRIGHT SOFTWAR (C) 2000. Any reproduction or use of content herein must be approved by SOFTWAR.