Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon

[pjb@ny.ubs.com (Paul J. Bell)]

i, for one, and perhaps others on the list as well, would be interested in hearing
what you mean when you say, "At&t, Microsoft, etc) who are ripping people off on a 
daily basis". 

for example, in what way is AT&T ripping people off? and what about
microsoft? 

i have no use at all for microsoft, and, being a unix person i don't even
use their stuff, but, i wonder how many people use word, excel, powerpoint, etc
that they ripped-off from someone else, without paying microsoft what they are
due for having developed the products. 

in general, i suspect that the rip-off is going the other way. after all, 
no one forces anyone buy from microsoft, AT&T, etc., but people do steal from
them, whenever they have the opportunity. not everyone, of course, but certainly
some do.  

these companies provide products and/or services that you are free to 
purchase or not, as you see fit or can afford.

	-paul

> From cypherpunks-errors@toad.com Thu Aug  1 18:31:50 1996
> X-Sender: ceridwyn@gonzo.wolfenet.com
> X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset="us-ascii"> 
> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 22:13:56 -0700
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> From: Cerridwyn Llewyellyn <ceridwyn@wolfenet.com>
> Subject: Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon
> Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
> Content-Length: 1579
> 
> 
> >> Okay, so their boss is part of the law making process, subject to the checks
> >> and balances that exist between the three branches of US government. They
> >> are in a position to supply their boss with data and I am personally
> >> impressed with their grasp of some of that data (it sounds to me like they
> >> are telling their boss that hackers like the ones at Defcon are not the
> >> problem).
> 
> It was interesting how the Agent made the point that the FBI was there to 
> enforce laws, not make policy.  Then his Boss's role in the law making process
> was brought up, the Agent said "but any of you can do the same thing, you
> all have a voice" etc etc.  Then he refused to answer political questions 
> based on the fact that he was there as a representative of the FBI, failing
> to see that his Boss is also a representative of the FBI when recommending
> legislation.  (Again, I realize he was "under orders" not to discuss it, I 
> wish he wouldn't try to justify it with obviously faulty logic.)
> 
> >    I think what they are really saying is that they would love to
> >bust most hackers, but since they can't they might as well use some of
> >them to catch the bigger fish.  If they truly did believe in the laws they
> >are supposed to uphold they wouldn't associate with hackers (who commit
> >computer crimes) at all.
> 
> A more cynical view is that they are there to protect some of the biggest
> institutions of "organized crime" (ie: Congress, At&t, Microsoft, etc) who
> are ripping people off on a daily basis from the other organizations who
> refuse to play by their rules.
> 
> //cerridwyn//
> 
> 
>