REDACTED AND UNREDACTED CLIPPER MEMO.


REDACTED VERSION SENT BY NSA

*** Please note *** This site under construction. The National Security Agency (NSA) does not like to make mistakes. For example, the Feb. 9, 1993 letter to George Tenet on Clipper states:

"In order to receive public acceptance and install confidence in the vendors and users of computer chips produced pursuant to this methodology, the procedures employed by the 'Clipper" encryption methodology must be rigorous and flawless. The methodology must not only be flawless, it must also create a strong perception that it is faultless."

This HAL like statement of "why we can't be wrong" is as inhuman as it is impossible. In a response to the latest batch of Freedom of Information Requests (FOIA) by Softwar the Agency that can't make a mistake blew it.

One memo titled: "Memorandum For the Assistant To The President & Staff Secretary" has several sections blacked out as redacted. The grounds for the blacked out portion were, according to James P. Cavanaugh, NSA Director of Policy, "inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be available by law to a party in litigation with the agency." The mistake?

The NSA trusted the Commerce Department.

It seems that the Commerce Department sent Softwar the same memo, including hand written notes, with no blacked out portions. So, you can read both the redacted (blacked out) and un-redacted copy (which will be at our web site shortly). You simply must see why the NSA was so worried about... being sued!

Did anyone but a few people know that two people sued the government over Clipper? Why sue? According to Andrew Logan it was because the Government had stolen his idea. Mr. Logan and his patent (No. 5,199,066) scared the NSA, Dept. of Justice and the Dept. of Commerce enough to send memos to the White House. The fun part is the fact that Logan threatened to sue and demanded $750,000. Sadly, Mr. Logan did not know the NSA and DOJ considered his threats to be valid. There is no indication that Mr. Logan ever followed up his litigation threat.

HELLO! PAGING MR. ANDREW LOGAN! Your Lawyer is calling you!

In another memo forced from the NSA by FOIA, titled "Logan Inquiry on Accuracy of Denning Report" is a view of how the NSA works. How they use people such as Dr. Dorothy Denning to get their dirty work done. The memo, written on 25 May 1993 by then General Legal Counsel for the NSA Stewart A. Baker, states:

"The paper was reviewed by XXXXXname-blacked-outXXXX who believes that it is accurate in those details relevant to Mr. Logan's offer to use it as a basis for detail why he believes the chip would infringe on his patent," wrote Baker, noting Dennings April 19 1993 post to the Internet started Logan after the Government for stealing his patent.

"Nonetheless," continued Baker. "We need to exercise great care in how we word any communications with Logan, because there are portions of Denning's document which do not exactly conform to our preferred wording. Obviously, any discrepancy, no matter how subtle, could cause unnecessary confusion. I am also concerned about establishing a precedent of confirming or denying the accuracy of information reported by the private sector."

Of course, the NSA is flawed, just as Mr. Baker's writings, Dr. Denning's comments and the entire Clipper project were flawed too. This entire SNAFU comes from the same folks that are now running Clinton's "Key Escrow" Executive Mandate (Clipper in another form). Still clinging to stupid ideas that somehow giving the keys to every computer in the U.S. to guys like Huang or Walker is a faultless proposal.

Nope. The NSA never makes mistakes.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT & STAFF SECRETARY

SUBJECT:  Patent Infringement Claim of Andrew Logan -
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM

1.  This is in response to your request for information
regarding the patent infringement of Andrew Logan.

2.  Mr. Logan is the owner of an invention protected by U.S.
patent No. 5,199,066, issued on March 30, 1993, and entitled
"Method and Apparatus for Protecting Software."  He contacted
NIST by letter on 30 April 1993 after reading the Dorothy
Denning description of Clipper which was published on the
Internet.  In his letter, he stated his belief that
implementation of Clipper would infringe his patent.  Several
days later, he provided a written justification for his
conclusion.

3.  My office received a copy of Mr. Logan's letter from NIST on
10 May and we discussed how to respond to him.  Mr. Logan's
preliminary justification was not convincing to patent attorneys
representing either NIST or NSA.  John Raubitschek, Patent
Counsel at the Department of Commerce, sent a memo to Mr. Logan
on 16 June 1993 stating that Clipper would not infringe his
patent but offering him the opportunity to provide more detailed
information.  Mr. Logan did respond with several papers
attempting to justify his claim.

4.  Mr. Logan met at NIST with an NSA legal representative and
NIST legal and technical representatives on 23 July.  He was
given full opportunity to present his claim in detail.  We
identified three specific issues which we said were not
addressed to our satisfaction in his analysis and offered him
the opportunity to respond after the meeting.  He accepted the
offer and provided further written information several days
later.  NIST and NSA attorneys jointly agreed, after reviewing
all available information, that Mr. Logan's patent is not
infringed by implementations of Clipper.  Mr. Raubitschek sent
Mr. Logan a letter on 3 September 1993 clearly stating this
conclusion and explaining the basis for it.

5.  We learned soon after from Mr. Rubin that Mr. Logan remained
unsatisified after receiving this letter.  He had apparently
telephoned Mr. Rubin and threatened litigation if a settlement
of $750,000 could not be negotiated.  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


6.  The 3 September 1993 letter to Mr. Logan referred to in
paragraph 4 above was intended to be final, and we do not
believe he is owed any further response as a result of his
telephone requests to continue the dialogue.  However, we also
understand that Mr. Logan has retained counsel, who is
continuing XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



Stewart A. Baker
General Counsel

UN-REDACTED VERSION SENT BY COMMERCE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT & STAFF SECRETARY

SUBJECT:  Patent Infringement Claim of Andrew Logan -
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM

1.  This is in response to your request for information
regarding the patent infringement of Andrew Logan.

2.  Mr. Logan is the owner of an invention protected by U.S.
patent No. 5,199,066, issued on March 30, 1993, and entitled
"Method and Apparatus for Protecting Software."  He contacted
NIST by letter on 30 April 1993 after reading the Dorothy
Denning description of Clipper which was published on the
Internet.  In his letter, he stated his belief that
implementation of Clipper would infringe his patent.  Several
days later, he provided a written justification for his
conclusion.

3.  My office received a copy of Mr. Logan's letter from NIST on
10 May and we discussed how to respond to him.  Mr. Logan's
preliminary justification was not convincing to patent attorneys
representing either NIST or NSA.  John Raubitschek, Patent
Counsel at the Department of Commerce, sent a memo to Mr. Logan
on 16 June 1993 stating that Clipper would not infringe his
patent but offering him the opportunity to provide more detailed
information.  Mr. Logan did respond with several papers
attempting to justify his claim.

4.  Mr. Logan met at NIST with an NSA legal representative and
NIST legal and technical representatives on 23 July.  He was
given full opportunity to present his claim in detail.  We
identified three specific issues which we said were not
addressed to our satisfaction in his analysis and offered him
the opportunity to respond after the meeting.  He accepted the
offer and provided further written information several days
later.  NIST and NSA attorneys jointly agreed, after reviewing
all available information, that Mr. Logan's patent is not
infringed by implementations of Clipper.  Mr. Raubitschek sent
Mr. Logan a letter on 3 September 1993 clearly stating this
conclusion and explaining the basis for it.

5.  We learned soon after from Mr. Rubin that Mr. Logan remained
unsatisified after receiving this letter.  He had apparently
telephoned Mr. Rubin and threatened litigation if a settlement
of $750,000 could not be negotiated.  We sought the advice of
Vito DiPietro, Director of the Commercial Litigation Branch at
DOJ, whose office would be responsible for defending Mr. Logan's
infringement suit if it were filed.  He tasked one of his staff
with independently reviewing the merits of Mr. Logan's claim.
This analysis also resulted in a conclusion of probable
noninfringement.  It was qualified to the extent that the claim
was not considered so frivolous as to be likely to be dismissed
summarily.  While it was believed that a trial on the merits
would end in favor of the Government, a protracted trial was
nevertheless possible.

6.  The 3 September 1993 letter to Mr. Logan referred to in
paragraph 4 above was intended to be final, and we do not
believe he is owed any further response as a result of his
telephone requests to continue the dialogue.  However, we also
understand that Mr. Logan has retained counsel, who is
continuing discussions with NIST.  We remain concerned about the
potential negative effect that litigation initiated by him may
have on public acceptance of Clipper, but we are not convinced
this is an adequate basis for continuing to negotiate with him,
given the weakness of his claim.


Stewart A. Baker
General Counsel

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