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//