4 ms·

It is very interesting that the richest* industry in the US cannot make their home senator bend to their will. Money can only buy advertising and campaign staff

It is very interesting that the richest* industry in the US cannot make their home senator bend to their will. Money can only buy advertising and campaign staff. It can't buy votes and votes are what keep folks in office. * Apple has $38 Billion in liquid assets [1]. Facebook has $18 Billion [2]. Amazon has $20 Billion [3]. Alphabet (fka Google) has $73 Billion [4]. Microsoft has $102 Billion [5]. In the last quarter of 2015, the largest companies by market capitalization were Apple, Alphabet, and Microsoft [6]. [1] https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/cash_on_hand https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/cash_on_hand [2] https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/cash_on_hand https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/cash_on_hand [3] https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/cash_on_hand https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/cash_on_hand [4] https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/cash_on_hand https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/cash_on_hand [5] https://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/cash_on_hand https://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/cash_on_hand [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by...

argonaut 11y ago
You seem to imply (but sort of dance around it) that this is a bad thing. It's a good thing that politicians can't be outright bought. Most senators are afraid of looking weak on national security, and this usually outweighs whatever financial clout you can bring to bear. Your average voter does not understand encryption, but understands "this will let us crack into terrorist's phones."
- afarrell 11y ago
  I'm not saying that it is a bad thing. I'm saying that it is a contradiction of the beliefs commonly found on HN, reddit, etc. about how corruption works.
  - sigmar 11y ago
    >I'm saying that it is a contradiction of the beliefs commonly found on HN, reddit, etc. about how corruption works. What, specifically, is being contradicted? Because your suggestion that tech companies can't influence one policy issue doesn't seem to contradict the belief that money influences politics.
incongruity 11y ago
Recent articles would suggest that tech firms are spending a lot of money on lobbyists: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/google-facebook-amazon-lobbying/ http://www.wired.com/2015/07/google-facebook-amazon-lobbying... and http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/09/which-tech-companies-spend-the-most-on-lobbying.aspx http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/09/which-tech-... And this database would suggest some tech companies fall into the 5th highest spending industry: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2015&indexType=i https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2015&inde... So, a the question is, why, despite these efforts are we still seeing this sort of thing? A few reasons, I'd guess... 1) Lobbying efforts by other industries and groups (law enforcement has a vested interest here, for example) 2) A tendency to wanting to look tough on crime and terrorism, especially going into an election year. Moderation and wise restraint are always a tough sell in politics. 3) The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit - politics edition. See http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-bullshit/ http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-... and 4) A propensity on the part of many in government to want to hold more power (closely related to point 2, but more self-serving).
- sturgill 11y ago
  A great way to increase an industry's lobbying efforts is to introduce bills like this that require a coordinated response.
  - bbcbasic 11y ago
    Why are you so sure your interests are always aligned with big tech interests?
    - sturgill 11y ago
      I don't believe that's what I implied. I was pointing out the discrepancy in the parent's argument that an increase in lobbying spending should correlate with a decrease in introductions of these types of bills. If these types of bills are viewed as extortionist policies, and lobbying efforts as akin to Mafia "protection" then these supposed discrepancies become more clear. I'm getting too old to think anyone else has my best interests at heart. Any one but me, that is.
zmmmmm 11y ago
You're assuming they've tried. I honestly think that the encryption controversy is still too recent for the big tech firms to fully engage their lobbying efforts. And I also think they honestly did not think this issue would get out of hand so fast - they would have considered outlawing encryption so insane that they probably have barely even prepared even their own thoughts in regard to how to argue against the idea.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > still too recent Twenty years is "too recent"? The "encryption controversy" started in the 90s. > they honestly did not think this issue would get out of hand so fast Again, this has been building for decades. The problem with the big tech firms is that some of them are collaborators. They don't want real encryption, because that would undermine their spyware-based business models.
adventured 11y ago
Apple has $233 billion in cash in real terms (as of the just reported quarter). They hold most of it in short term assets; it's equivalent to cash in that they can access the capital on very short notice if needed. If Apple had to write a check for $50 billion next week, they can do it.
- afarrell 11y ago
  I also saw that figure, but was skeptical of it. I decided to be conservative with my figures.
DanielBMarkham 11y ago
Who's saying they can't? You don't have to buy into all the conspiracy arguments to believe that this kind of thing is coordinated, probably at her level. And talk is cheap. She can propose next week that we all have to wear funny hats. There are two questions to ask. 1) Is this a serious effort intended to pass or something else? and 2) If it is something else, how would Feinstein benefit from doing this? You'd have to be brain dead to think she believes this will pass. So obviously the answer to #1 is "It's not a serious effort" #2 gets much more interesting. If she's doing this as a stalking horse, why? My money says it's to hold on to blue collar workers come the next election. She'll be first in line talking about how she did all she could to make computers "safer". But that's just my intuition. Politicians have a tendency to propose things their sponsors don't like, that they know will not pass, in order to have both their cake and eat it too. The system has been working like that for decades in both the House and Senate.
dexterdog 11y ago
Who's to say that those companies are not in favor of this kind of stuff as long as they can get the right provisions in the final bill? If real encryption is illegal for all other software vendors that makes your software a much safer bet for the people who actually care about that stuff.
rsync 11y ago
"It is very interesting that the richest* industry in the US cannot make their home senator bend to their will." I think they can, and did. I think the entire apple/iphone/fbi storyline was a ruse. The government went to apple and told them which way things were going to go and Apple pushed back and insisted that they needed some kind of plausible deniability and PR cushion for the eventual state of affairs. So they worked together to concoct a (fake) dispute between Apple and FBI, which Apple "won", but which still allowed the FBI to get what they needed through a heretofore unknown third party. I am not sure who I would consider having the upper hand in this relationship, but I know it's not you and I.

argonaut 11y ago

You seem to imply (but sort of dance around it) that this is a bad thing. It's a good thing that politicians can't be outright bought. Most senators are afraid of looking weak on national security, and this usually outweighs whatever financial clout you can bring to bear. Your average voter does not understand encryption, but understands "this will let us crack into terrorist's phones."

afarrell 11y ago
I'm not saying that it is a bad thing. I'm saying that it is a contradiction of the beliefs commonly found on HN, reddit, etc. about how corruption works.
- sigmar 11y ago
  >I'm saying that it is a contradiction of the beliefs commonly found on HN, reddit, etc. about how corruption works. What, specifically, is being contradicted? Because your suggestion that tech companies can't influence one policy issue doesn't seem to contradict the belief that money influences politics.

incongruity 11y ago

Recent articles would suggest that tech firms are spending a lot of money on lobbyists: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/google-facebook-amazon-lobbying/ http://www.wired.com/2015/07/google-facebook-amazon-lobbying... and http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/09/which-tech-companies-spend-the-most-on-lobbying.aspx http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/09/which-tech-... And this database would suggest some tech companies fall into the 5th highest spending industry: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2015&indexType=i https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2015&inde... So, a the question is, why, despite these efforts are we still seeing this sort of thing? A few reasons, I'd guess... 1) Lobbying efforts by other industries and groups (law enforcement has a vested interest here, for example) 2) A tendency to wanting to look tough on crime and terrorism, especially going into an election year. Moderation and wise restraint are always a tough sell in politics. 3) The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit - politics edition. See http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-bullshit/ http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-... and 4) A propensity on the part of many in government to want to hold more power (closely related to point 2, but more self-serving).

sturgill 11y ago
A great way to increase an industry's lobbying efforts is to introduce bills like this that require a coordinated response.
- bbcbasic 11y ago
  Why are you so sure your interests are always aligned with big tech interests?
  - sturgill 11y ago
    I don't believe that's what I implied. I was pointing out the discrepancy in the parent's argument that an increase in lobbying spending should correlate with a decrease in introductions of these types of bills. If these types of bills are viewed as extortionist policies, and lobbying efforts as akin to Mafia "protection" then these supposed discrepancies become more clear. I'm getting too old to think anyone else has my best interests at heart. Any one but me, that is.

zmmmmm 11y ago

You're assuming they've tried. I honestly think that the encryption controversy is still too recent for the big tech firms to fully engage their lobbying efforts. And I also think they honestly did not think this issue would get out of hand so fast - they would have considered outlawing encryption so insane that they probably have barely even prepared even their own thoughts in regard to how to argue against the idea.

pdkl95 11y ago
> still too recent Twenty years is "too recent"? The "encryption controversy" started in the 90s. > they honestly did not think this issue would get out of hand so fast Again, this has been building for decades. The problem with the big tech firms is that some of them are collaborators. They don't want real encryption, because that would undermine their spyware-based business models.

adventured 11y ago

Apple has $233 billion in cash in real terms (as of the just reported quarter). They hold most of it in short term assets; it's equivalent to cash in that they can access the capital on very short notice if needed. If Apple had to write a check for $50 billion next week, they can do it.

afarrell 11y ago
I also saw that figure, but was skeptical of it. I decided to be conservative with my figures.

DanielBMarkham 11y ago

Who's saying they can't? You don't have to buy into all the conspiracy arguments to believe that this kind of thing is coordinated, probably at her level. And talk is cheap. She can propose next week that we all have to wear funny hats. There are two questions to ask. 1) Is this a serious effort intended to pass or something else? and 2) If it is something else, how would Feinstein benefit from doing this? You'd have to be brain dead to think she believes this will pass. So obviously the answer to #1 is "It's not a serious effort" #2 gets much more interesting. If she's doing this as a stalking horse, why? My money says it's to hold on to blue collar workers come the next election. She'll be first in line talking about how she did all she could to make computers "safer". But that's just my intuition. Politicians have a tendency to propose things their sponsors don't like, that they know will not pass, in order to have both their cake and eat it too. The system has been working like that for decades in both the House and Senate.

dexterdog 11y ago

Who's to say that those companies are not in favor of this kind of stuff as long as they can get the right provisions in the final bill? If real encryption is illegal for all other software vendors that makes your software a much safer bet for the people who actually care about that stuff.

rsync 11y ago

"It is very interesting that the richest* industry in the US cannot make their home senator bend to their will." I think they can, and did. I think the entire apple/iphone/fbi storyline was a ruse. The government went to apple and told them which way things were going to go and Apple pushed back and insisted that they needed some kind of plausible deniability and PR cushion for the eventual state of affairs. So they worked together to concoct a (fake) dispute between Apple and FBI, which Apple "won", but which still allowed the FBI to get what they needed through a heretofore unknown third party. I am not sure who I would consider having the upper hand in this relationship, but I know it's not you and I.