1st, nothing is ever that simple whihchiswhythesimple explanations cause the hair on the back of my neck to standup.
2nd, I'm sitting here (RIGHT NOW) in a meeting room at the university of illiois, chicago, talking about solving our energy issues with a bunch of smart guys from all over the ocuntry... but I'm blathering with you on DHC, instead of giving them my full attention. point is I'm a little distracted (the meeting room isn't that big and I have to pay some attention to what's going on around me)... but I still don't get your point. is it: in case they (the telecoms?) go too far so that their finances might be in jeoardy under existing law, then they won't help out. very patriotic till $$ got in the way.
So if we want them (telecoms?) to help us (even if it breaks the law) so mid-level government functionaryies (Nixon wasn't mid-level nor was any other administration or high level (think Herbert Hoover) that had lists of citizen enemies) can get fast access to our boring lives, we have to make it safe for them and their profits...? on the basis that in reality, they are making it safer for us. right?
Am I the only one getting dizzy from these intricate, delicate, circular, non-explanations?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?