You may enjoy This American Life's episode on "Take the Money and Run for Office" [1]
> Dick Durbin: I think most Americans would be shocked-- not surprised, but shocked-- if they knew how much time a United States senator spends raising money. And how much time we spend talking about raising money, and thinking about raising money, and planning to raise money. And, you know, going off on little retreats and conjuring up new ideas on how to raise money. [2]
...
> Barney Frank: If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district. [2]
The point is, if they are voted out they lose their jobs and income, therefore they must listen to voters. I'm not saying I support super PACs or anything, but I find it comforting to know that if we come together on something then we do have a role in the democratic process that is stronger than money.
We are! Sort of. Not a money-raising PAC, but rather a campaign to educate people about encryption in ways that are understandable by non-techies. A few of us plan to make a website and a fun campaign name. If you're interested in being involved, send me an email at stillastudent on google's email service.
Or make your own campaign. The more, the merrier.
There is also the EFF, and an organization called Fight for the Future which is currently running a campaign called Save Security. I'm in touch with both about working together. Tech companies will also lobby for stuff themselves. I'm not sure whether the likes of Facebook, Google and Apple are coordinating on this issue yet or not.
My thought is to do this campaign at zero cost and on donated developer time. I don't plan to register as a 501(c)3 or take donations. I'm hoping Obama changes his mind and there is no need for a campaign. But, if that doesn't happen, I hope we can present the facts to non-techies and share some reasonable arguments techies can use when talking with friends or family, or when contacting representatives. I've read a lot of good arguments online. I think it's just a matter of putting them in one referable location, and making them relatable to non-techies.
This is not true; there are any number of studies and interviews which have shown that elected representatives will only act in favor of donors if the voters are silent or supportive. No congressman or senator will ignore dozens of letters and phonecalls (, though there has been some debate as to the utility of e-mails).
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].
All of the companies I've mentioned have filed or joined in an Amicus Curiae brief in support of Apple [7]. If money mattered more than voters, then congress would have already passed a bill to satisfy the wishes of America's most financially successful company.
Why haven't they? Because money can only buy advertising and campaign staff. It can't buy votes and votes are what keep them in office.
Another take on this issue is that the FBI and NSA have a strong opposing interest. While they may not lobby in the same sense as Apple etc., they do represent law enforcement, which is an enormously powerful lobby in the US. So all those private companies are on one side, sure, but US law enforcement is on the other, and that's quite a fight (and one that law enforcement has been winning for a long time now).
But what is it that makes law enforcement a more powerful lobby? The average cop with several years of experience makes significantly less than an engineer straight out of college.
Unfortunately, any technological progress is hostage to public policy.
Unless the voting public starts valuing their privacy more, the government can simply legislate around stronger crypto.
They can mandate key escrow, ban encryption altogether, or be old fashioned about it and send letters demanding you hand over the private key. Don't like it? Go to jail.
Unless you have a lot of money, your representatives don't care.
It seems like the only way to make progress is to support stronger encryption, with less of a possibility of engineering backdoors.