Re: Digital warfare

>Date: Fri, 10 Sep 93 19:40:37 -0500
>From: ferguson@fiber.sprintlink.net (Paul Ferguson x2044)
>Message-Id: <9309110040.AA09675@fiber.sprintlink.net>
>Subject: Digital warfare


>> So, if you see folks using BlackNet for advertising Intel
>> chips....
> 
> That's an interesting point (images of "Wild Palms" conjured).
> This _is_ the wave of the future, as Tim implies, and it's
> unfortunate that instances such as this (segway) tarnishes what
> it is that I think many of us are trying to espouse in the
> cypherpunk movement.
>

>ferguson@icp.net            |   Privacy -- Use it or lose it.

I have heard cypherpunks described as two groups under one label:

1.	those of us who advocate privacy in private hands

2.	those who advocate anarchy

I'm in the privacy camp and worry that enough talk from the anarchists
will cause the privacy to be attacked.  I fully expect total retaliation
by the governments of the world against any effective anarchy.  The wilder
the threats (even if they're not real), the stronger the retaliation.
We could lose all privacy as a result.

It's important not to give the government any excuse which would make the
populace side with them against us.  This is a political battle and we need
the people on our side.

For example, crypto-anarchic banks -- cute idea -- but if you ever want a
cop to make your banker give you the money, the banker can't be anonymous
and neither can you account be.  ..so you have to *really* trust this
banker.  Maybe some people will trust such a banker enough.  But,
meanwhile, talk of total tax evasion by the more excited of our
crypto-anarchy brethren might give the government the political ammunition
it needs.

In fact, if the FBI has planted agents on this list, I wouldn't be
surprised to discover someday that they were among the vocal anarchists.

 - Carl

Carl Ellison says:
> For example, crypto-anarchic banks -- cute idea -- but if you ever want a
> cop to make your banker give you the money, the banker can't be anonymous
> and neither can you account be.

Perhaps the banker can't be anonymous, but the account certainly can
be. Many countries have centuries of experience with this. Hell, the
Austrians have 100% anonymous accounts to this day. Works just fine,
and no trust is involved.

> In fact, if the FBI has planted agents on this list, I wouldn't be
> surprised to discover someday that they were among the vocal anarchists.

Feel free to check my credentials. I assure you I earn more than
enough money at my job that it wouldn't be worth the FBI's money to
make the bribe big enough -- it would also have to cover the risk to
me that being an anarchist presents vis a vis my job -- someday I
might lose it for having strange political ideas, and salaries like
mine are hard to come by in other professions.

Its entirely possible that there are FBI agents on this list -- I
proceed on that assumption every day. Its also possible that there are
agents provocateur. However, I fully assure you that many of us are
legitimate anarchists of long standing, most of us being of the
capitalist anarchist persuasion.

I'll fully agree that arguing for anarchy with the general public
won't work at the current time -- and I agree that our image is
important. However, at this point the battle is being fought by folks
like EFF and CPSR. I for one don't see any reason to hide my politics,
although I try not to make an issue of it.

Perry

I want to echo Carl's sentiments. I do find talk about cryptographically
enforced underground economies to be interesting, but scary as well
precisely because I'm afraid of what the backlash might do to the
cryptographically enforced personal privacy that I'm primarily
interested in.

Phil

Phile Karn <karn@qualcomm.com> writes:
> I want to echo Carl's sentiments. I do find talk about cryptographically
> enforced underground economies to be interesting, but scary as well
> precisely because I'm afraid of what the backlash might do to the
> cryptographically enforced personal privacy that I'm primarily
> interested in.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your position) the two are
really inseperable; it is this fact above all others that I really think
gives the people inside the beltway the willies when it comes to
cryptography.  Information has no morality and is subject to no rules save
its own.  It is kinda like money in that way... >:)  

If you have the ability to send message that is private there is nothing to
prevent that message from being a digital cheque for payment of services.
The "underground economy" is probably a lot larger than you would imagine,
and given the current political climate you might be able to get a lot
farther with the masses by telling them that digital money will give them
the ability to tell the IRS where to stick thier noses than pretending it
would never happen in the "crypto-enlightened age" and have an opponent
bring it up as a point against strong crypto.

The two are really inseperable and it seems to be of little value to
pretend that they are not.

jim

Mr. McCoy <mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> of `strong cryptography' and `anarchy':

>The two are really inseperable and it seems to be of little value to
>pretend that they are not.

that is, 

>If you have the ability to send message that is private there is nothing to
>prevent that message from being a digital cheque for payment of services.
>The "underground economy" is probably a lot larger than you would imagine,
>and given the current political climate you might be able to get a lot
>farther with the masses by telling them that digital money will give them
>the ability to tell the IRS where to stick thier noses than pretending it
>would never happen in the "crypto-enlightened age" and have an opponent
>bring it up as a point against strong crypto.

I think this is absolutely baseless. Cash is just as untraceable as a
cryptographically encoded message. Have governments collapsed on the
existence of cash? (well, there's this thing called inflation, but
that's something else...)  Do we really think that criminals will
flourish if only they could get their hands on digital cash? don't
criminals make a pretty ingenious use of all the rudimentary tools in
use today? is lack of strong cryptography or digital cash preventing
all kinds of sordid mischief, criminality, and terrorism? is the fate
of the world teetering on the use of the RSA algorithm for [x] size
keys or the ability to generate primes and factor numbers?

Definitely, these new technologies will give rise to new *forms* of
criminality, but the delicate ratio between `lawful citizens' and `evil
violators' will assuredly always stay the same. Actually, truly
powerful new technology, despite all the rampant and paranoid fears of
the populace, has always inherently favored virtue and order in the long run.

While I also find the anarchic talk on the list someone disconcerting
and misguided, I find it ridiculous to claim that cryptography is a
technology that is inherently conducive to anarchy or the deterioration
of social order. It *is* conducive, however, to a new kind of
government and order unlike any we've ever seen before, and
unfortunately it will be so unlike anything in historical experience --
so unlike any `order' we've ever imagined -- that perhaps the crude
term `anarchy' is the most apropos of all in our vocabulary. Bush was
right on only one count in his characterization of `The New World
Order' -- in supposing it exists. Otherwise, the cypherpunks take over
the true vision.

I *do* believe that we will see entirely new `taxation' systems with
the advent of digital cash. It will just be exercised (or `excised') in
different ways. We are likely to see mechanisms at the digital bank
point for collecting a `transaction tax' (what a sales tax is today).

We may also see the creation of `virtual governments' in which the
geographical location of an individual is irrelevant to his choice of
government, and perhaps for the first time in history the individual
can choose freely among all those that exist, to that which best suits
his preferences, and the so-called `social contract' between the
citizen and his government is actually made *explicit* for the first
time. This will all happen on some levels.

But only the silly, pale bureacrats in the NSA attribute the Collapse
of the World and the Plague of the BoogieMen to the advent and
proliferation of strong cryptography.  Cryptography is not synonymous
with tax evasion, terrorism, or utter chaos. It is simply as neutral,
powerful, and liberating as communication itself. In fact, for the
first time we are beginning to realize what `communication' truly entails.

According to L. Detweiler:
>
>Mr. McCoy <mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> of `strong cryptography' and `anarchy':
>
>>the ability to tell the IRS where to stick thier noses than pretending it
>>would never happen in the "crypto-enlightened age" and have an opponent
>>bring it up as a point against strong crypto.
>
>I think this is absolutely baseless. Cash is just as untraceable as a
>cryptographically encoded message. Have governments collapsed on the
>existence of cash? (well, there's this thing called inflation, but
>that's something else...)
	Actually, yes.  Like it or not, most major transactions ever since
probably the fifties, are not at all done in "real money".  Its all existed
as checks, credits, assets, etc. on some bank note somewhere, and now as
ones and zeroes in the international info markets.  Cash has become a *big*
worry for governments nowadays because of the "shadow economy" thats developed
with cash.  Its completely untraceable, mostly unrecorded, and so the IRS (or
any other government agency for that matter) has NO way to know whats
Happening.  The U.S. gova'ment is losing billions of dollars because of these
transactions, and many people have seriously considered outlawing cash.  
	What would happen if all our transactions become untraceable?  
How is the government supposed to prove anything, except by becoming fascist
corporate fanatics (which is what is trying to happen right now).  Better
yet, if all our communications are in private, how are the information
companies going to get their money?  Whos going to have established credit-
the very basis of our modern kapitalism?  

>Do we really think that criminals will
>flourish if only they could get their hands on digital cash? don't
>criminals make a pretty ingenious use of all the rudimentary tools in
>use today? is lack of strong cryptography or digital cash preventing
	Up until about the 70s it was damn near impossible to enforce
what the modern day fascists call the "drug war".  This was because
the world had not become superbly networked as it is, and so, any strange
transactions or series of transactions could go virtually unnoticed.
It was only in the eighties, with the microcomputer and increased
interconnectivity, was it possible to catch, for example, money laundering.
Yet, at the same time, for "criminals" it was pretty damn hard to
communicate.  So, what happens when you have all the freedom of privacy,
and all the power of communication?  The crash of the drug war and the
governments spellbinding and gestapo-like control of the public.

>powerful new technology, despite all the rampant and paranoid fears of
>the populace, has always inherently favored virtue and order in the long run.
	Bzzzzt.  Wrong again.  All major technologies have only *increased*
freedom, not the opposite.  Technology has always caused more opportunity
to think and to do, something that holders of power have never wanted you
to do.  Of course, it also depends on what you consider being virtue.
Being a discordian/anarchist, I consider the chaos and freedom the virtue.
	
>unfortunately it will be so unlike anything in historical experience --
>so unlike any `order' we've ever imagined -- that perhaps the crude
>term `anarchy' is the most apropos of all in our vocabulary. Bush was
	Agreed, but cryptography IMNSHO, is a very strong step toward
the natural progression towards true anarchy.

>proliferation of strong cryptography.  Cryptography is not synonymous
>with tax evasion, terrorism, or utter chaos. It is simply as neutral,
>powerful, and liberating as communication itself. In fact, for the
>first time we are beginning to realize what `communication' truly entails.
>
	Again, agreed.  But, as you pointed out, the effects of communication
is more often liberating than not.  Such the same with crypto.  The reason
crypto is getting so much hype is because its the safety protection for 
communication- the true weapon against the powermongrels.

I'm really glad I gateway this mailing list into a newsgroup.
That way, I can killfile discussions such as this one. However,
for those not so blessed....

In article <CD789B.FHu@twwells.com>, T. William Wells <bill@twwells.com> wrote:
: I'm really glad I gateway this mailing list into a newsgroup.
: That way, I can killfile discussions such as this one. However,
: for those not so blessed....

Whoops. At least one person is imagining that I gateway this into
some global newsgroup somewhere...

What I'm using is a set of home-grown scripts to gateway the list
into a local newsgroup. There's a mail to news gateway package out
there that is probably a better solution. If you can't find it or
would prefer my home grown scripts, let me know. I can send you
that other software (though I haven't looked at it) or I can send
you my scripts. There are also things like procmail and deliver
that can be used to do this sort of thing.

On Sat, 11 Sep 1993, Da Mystic Homeboy wrote:

> 	What would happen if all our transactions become untraceable?  
> How is the government supposed to prove anything, except by becoming fascist
> corporate fanatics (which is what is trying to happen right now).  Better
> yet, if all our communications are in private, how are the information
> companies going to get their money?  Whos going to have established credit-
> the very basis of our modern kapitalism?  


While I'm very much in favor of digital cash & strong encryption and
excited by their potential uses, it seems to me that you're leaving out an
awful lot when you paint your vision of the "private" future.  Neither is
likely to dramatically reduce the amount of general-purpose information
available on people and businesses.  With the ATM always around the
corner, there's almost no reason for me to use a credit card, yet I do
(frequent flyer mile credits aside) because it's convenient.  The same for
giving my unlisted telephone number to the plumber (who, in the years to
come, undoubtedly will maintain it in a database and may even sell it)
because I want him to call if he's going to be three hours late to fix the
leaky pipe.  As far as who's going to have established credit, the answer
is darn near everyone who can get it.  Credit is a powerful tool in a
market economy -- to get an idea of how important it is even to average
people, just look at the number of articles published by feminists on the
plight of recently divorced women who had previously relied on their
husband's credit rating.  Rather than using the new tools for anonymity,
I'll bet that most people, most of the time, want to use them to more
securely establish *identity*  (i.e., I don't want that jerk down the
street with a Radio Shack scanner using my credit for his own purposes).

	In the end, I would suggest that a digital cash/strong encryption
future will include a delicate balance in which each of us is constantly
broadcasting personal information in the clear for purposes of convenience
(even though we will quickly lose control over how that information is
used) while simultaneously using privacy tools to permit more secure
transactions and communications.  This is not to suggest that there won't
be a continued underground economy, but I don't see it taking over the
world.

Jim McCoy says:
> If you have the ability to send message that is private there is nothing to
> prevent that message from being a digital cheque for payment of services.
> The "underground economy" is probably a lot larger than you would imagine,

It is currently estimated that at least 10 MILLION people a year fail
to file income tax returns, and that another 10 MILLION file returns
that are partially or wholely fraudulent. The government would like
you to believe that this is rare, so they don't make much of it, but
the fact remains that your odds of being prosecuted for tax fraud or
failing to file are miniscule. They pick famous people every year to
go after like Leona Helmsley to get publicity, but they really don't
have the resources to go after more than a couple thousand people a
year. A large fraction of the economy in our country is completely
underground already.

> and given the current political climate you might be able to get a lot
> farther with the masses by telling them that digital money will give them
> the ability to tell the IRS where to stick thier noses than pretending it
> would never happen in the "crypto-enlightened age" and have an opponent
> bring it up as a point against strong crypto.

This I disagree with. Even people who commit tax fraud every day are
horrified by the notion of other people committing it. Its strange,
but its a product of our "sanction of the victim" culture. The result
of this is that even people who would in the back of their mind love
to be able to commit tax fraud with no chance of being caught will not
support infrastructure that makes it possible.

This is not to say, though, that their support is needed. Countries
around the world have turned tax evasion and secret banking into
national industries. Look at the Swiss, for example. Computer networks
will make private electronic funds transfer systems, and the capacity
to take advantage of offshore banks, ubiquitous. The only way to stop
it, even if it were to become illegal, would be massive tapping of all
data transactions on a scale that could literally not be sustained
without bankrupting the government. Imagine trying to hire a staff to
monitor all binary data crossing international lines even at todays data
rates -- then imagine if those rates went up by three orders of
magnitude.

Quite simply, whether governments like it or not, income taxation is
pretty much doomed. Either they have to move to operating entirely on
the level of tangible property and tangible consumption taxation, or
they will starve.

Perry

Phil Karn says:
> I want to echo Carl's sentiments. I do find talk about cryptographically
> enforced underground economies to be interesting, but scary as well
> precisely because I'm afraid of what the backlash might do to the
> cryptographically enforced personal privacy that I'm primarily
> interested in.

You have to accept that the tools for the one are the same as the
tools for the other. Its reasonable to not want to emphasize both, but
its unreasonable to assume that the enemy doesn't already know that
both are done with the same algorithms. If this worries you, come up
with your arguments now -- you will need them later.

Perry