1994-08-18 - Re: EFF on why they did it.

Header Data

From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: ba4289ac0046d9190f5dc2ca5da7624a4841ea5111496c4540c61e489a8333d3
Message ID: <9408182314.AA22475@anchor.ho.att.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-08-18 23:17:46 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 16:17:46 PDT

Raw message

From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 16:17:46 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: EFF on why they did it.
Message-ID: <9408182314.AA22475@anchor.ho.att.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

David Lesher writes:

> > Paid for "by the government"?!!  And just where does the EFF think the  
> > government gets its money?  
> One difference -- the Hill must allocate money for "paid for by the
> government" as compared to "just rape the switch designer" financing.
> No money, not wiretaps. That may {or may not} limit the effect of FBI
> Wiretap, depending on how [much/little] the Hill loosens the
> pursestrings.

It's certainly a good start, but the government *does* have other money.
For instance, when Clipper was first announced, they said they wouldn't
need Congressional permission, because they were paying for it out of the
DoJ Super Forfeiture Fund, which had about $2B in money stolen from
users of politically incorrect substances.  I realize that doesn't go very
far when you're talking about restructuring the Global Information 
Infrastructure.  But it's a lever to get stuff started, then they can
go demanding tax money because you *can't* shut down the Phone Companies!