From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 94 11:24:21 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Profiting from the Wiretap Bill
In-Reply-To: <9408121631.AA02707@bilbo.suite.com>
Message-ID: <199408121824.LAA06502@netcom5.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> > This spending cap is...a way to guarantee that carriers'
> > expenses for electronic surveillance are truly paid for
> > by the government, not by the customers.
> > 
> 
> Paid for "by the government"?!!  And just where does the EFF think the  
> government gets its money?  Are there any taxpayers out there who don't  
> use the phone systems?  Looks like they're are going to get a big bill  
> from the government in the next few years.
> 
> I can't belive the EFF is actually using this as a pro argument.  I can't  
> believe the EFF is supporting the Wiretap bill.  The EFF is not getting  
> any more money from me.

Nor from me. They've sold out. The NRA took a "no compromises" stance,
and just helped to defeat the terrible Crime Bill. EFF has learned yet
that you can't compromise with the Beast...it's always hungry.

But this is not my point here. Rather, I have somde idea on using the
"government will pay for retrofitting" clause to make the whole thing
into a charade. 

The idea is to build systems which clearly fall under the provisions
of the EFF's Wiretap Bill, but which are designed so as to require a
special gadget to make them tappable....a gadget only for sale from
May Enterprises, or Frissell Incorporated or Toal Ltd. And for a "very
reasonable" price of only, say, $250,000.

If the Feds refuse to pay, or demand a lower price for the gadget, all
sorts of repercussions will follow. 

I'm only partly joking here, as I think the "$500 million" (or was it
billion?) set aside--supposedly--to pay for upgrades to make systems
easily wiretappable will vanish into hundreds of scams like this. The
scams will be better disguised than mine, but the effect will be the
same.

Here's a piece I wrote for comp.org.eff.talk on this plan:


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Profiting from the Wiretap Bill
Message-ID: <tcmayCuCx9y.7A1@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 06:13:10 GMT


So the Feds will pay us to make our switching systems wire-tappable?

Hmmmhhh...

Well, the switching system I'm now using in un-tappable unless a
special gadget is added, a gadget only available from May Enterprises,
my other company, for a mere $250,000 in quantities of one.

If the Wiretap Bill becomes law, and they want my switch made
tappable, and they'll pay to make it tappable, I'll be very happy to
"order" one of these special gadgets from May Enterprises.

(Of course, then I'll shut down the tappable system and build another
one...)

It's pretty clear that this idea about the Feds _paying for_ the wire
tap upgrades (Fedgrades?) just won't fly. They may pay for their
favored suppliers, the MCIs and AT&Ts, but not for folks like us.

And as others have noted, we'll be building alternatives that make the
Wiretap Bill pointless. (More than a year ago we ran a DES-encrypted
conference linkup between Cypherpunks meetings in Silicon Valley,
Boston, and Washington...all over the Internet! VoicePGP is coming,
fast. What will the Feds do with schemes like these?)

(If they claim our encrypted link has to be made tappable, there's
that special $250,000 gadget I was telling you about....)

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."