1996-01-09 - Re: A little skepticism over $60 billion

Header Data

From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Message Hash: 2c74008d52d27ed749c17de00fc7b185271e12696f52eaacabcaddf9a0206f6e
Message ID: <199601091811.NAA31069@opine.cs.umass.edu>
Reply To: <199601091428.JAA16977@pipe9.nyc.pipeline.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-09 18:40:29 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 02:40:29 +0800

Raw message

From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 02:40:29 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: A little skepticism over $60 billion
In-Reply-To: <199601091428.JAA16977@pipe9.nyc.pipeline.com>
Message-ID: <199601091811.NAA31069@opine.cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

SF Examiner writes:
# NEW YORK U.S. companies will lose as much as 30 percent of the $200  
# billion in U.S. computer system sales expected 

tallpaul writes:
> Now we know that U.S. companies will lose something off the government's
> anti-export policies. But will we really see 30% of sales lost by
> purchasing agents saying "Gee, we'd like to buy IBM mainframe's and Dell
> micros and Windows and unix but we won't because there is no secure
> encryption program in the world that will run on the IBM or U.S. micros or
> under the U.S. OS's"? 
>  
> Let's fight the export laws over exporting quality crypto without accepting
> advertising hype from any industry. 

First of all, Bill S. was suggesting that the $60B figure is too low 
to be convincing to certain crucial people. Arguing that the figure should 
probably be even lower can only lend weight to that argument.

Secondly, as I'm sure you'll agree, mass media reports and advertising can
sway public opinion. IMHO cypherpunks should not hesitate to use those tools
to further our cause. Putting a specific number, almost any number, on the
anticipated opportunity cost drives the point home with a lot of people. Now
most reasonable people know (I think) that projections are based on 
assumptions that turn out to be partially wrong, for various reasons. But
they still form useful premises for debate. (I have the current U.S. federal 
budget battle in the back of my mind here.)

Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>  (in a verbose mood, inexplicably)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMPKvwSnaAKQPVHDZAQGbkAf+MINM93dSp5wSpd7w0A7qnSu4JQgQhcXS
22TaRnd4vUtVs/EK/qpdVwTrYuVwmaaTX99OLHjIJkYrbFOeU8KReXhS787/66dg
8LDqehcz2OW0eueo96lDMUD6HD9cmOrNkZHwTOuCrlCJTg7pVT5Y4dGADgRruVVN
Ll9FULAOWqw2Ks6g4xgrtTFxrlIX2pCKJIyfsD1m2fbxZucNqUTVxYYTG22fq8no
V5tLSog8zxkzawHXTdtjkxaFlt+jvwZJUZRjynT8T9UJB522LJnvJAEWS2cgdw1W
cOiRdNZv5Y4Se4cJasMO62G5ipSeWMjw3F2ADfmWIrUr2eYdKpOyCA==
=K4KN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





Thread