personal manifesto (comments appreciated)

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

The following is my manifesto of net.beliefs.  I recognize their lack of 
precision, their foundation in principles of faith, and their lack of a 
clear vehicle for realization.  I do not profess them to be a statement 
of cypherpunk beliefs.  I do submit them for discussion, criticism, 
suggestion, rant, or flame.  If you disagree this is your chance to 
educate a misguided individual with hopelessly antiquated beliefs.  If 
you agree, this is your chance to point out badly constructed arguments, 
awkward sentences, repetition, and poor word choice.

I cannot work for something unless I know what it is IUm working for.

1)	My vision of the Net is utopian, or I would not spell it as I do, 
with a capitol N.  While the most likely possibility is that the Net 
will simply mirror current society, a Net of this structure would fail 
to realize its potential as an agent of social change.

2)	The Net has the potential to become the greatest de-centralizing 
force in the history of humanity.  The potential ability of the 
individual to cheaply reach, and organize, vast numbers of like-minded 
individuals is unprecedented.

3)	Current arguments for regulation of cryptography by government 
agencies depend on the argument they are maintaining their current 
abilities in the brave new world of cyberspace.  I argue that even if 
this were the case, we have a responsibility to do more than simply 
maintain the status quo.  This argument can be mapped to possible future 
objections by authorities.

4)	It is the responsibility of the information haves to spread their 
knowledge to the information have-nots.  A Net which allows the economic 
exploitation of information have-nots by those with the information is, 
while perhaps profitable, immoral.  Information wants to be free.  
Knowledge which is not of a personal nature should be freely accessible.

5)	Along with these positive potentials, it is possible for the Net 
to be constructed in such a way as to allow the formation of the most 
powerful authoritarian societies the world has ever seen.  The potential 
for the death of the Individual, just as for the empowerment of the 
Individual, is very real.  We must work to prevent totalitarianism.

6)	The Net is no better than its users.  Current crises of economic 
inequality, of homelessness and hunger, will not be affected by the Net 
unless we work to change them in pre-Net society.  People cannot 
participate in a democratic society if they are not educated to a minimal 
level required for functioning in that society.  This is the crux of our 
societal problems, as well as the crux of possible problems with the Net.

7)	It is better to help oneUs fellow human than to hurt.  It is 
better to give than to receive.  Equally, one human has an enormous 
capacity to injure and exploit another human.  We must decide which 
ability we wish to empower, and judge which we actually do.

8)	There are fundamental problems with the structure of society.  
Realizing the democratic vision of the Net is a way to re-structure 
society.  My hope is that this restructuring will create a better 
society than the one I know.  I recognize it can be worse-- much worse.  
With vigilance, it will not be.

9)	My beliefs are hopelessly utopian.  I have faith in democratic 
principles to shape society into a more just social hierarchy.  This 
faith must not be confused with certainty.  It is impossible to predict 
the shape of the society which will be created.  A few risks are of the 
tyranny of the majority, and the willful formation of totalitarian 
dictatorships (hyperlink Weimar Germany).  The will of the people is 
impossible to define, much less judge, gauge, measure or regulate.  We 
must be satisfied with approximations.

10)	All actions have moral implications.  Ignoring these implications
is irresponsible and, yes... immoral.

- -john.

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Blair: <jdblair@nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu>         voice: (513) 529-4877
PGP public key available upon request.                           KILL YOUR
Privacy in the information age is a right, not a privilage.     TELEVISION 
Information = Power = Control.    Fight the centralization of information.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3

iQBVAgUBLZZOOBD3efpluabZAQH/swH9FmFB45S9jcMs2oqMn12wTEfqcbGFDdSN
LAc5NEt1us7aipazZIouu+abSsPRlqq2lhIxOzJ65KGlYNdWjJ0tPw==
=NiD7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

John Blair says he welcomes comments and criticism, so here goes:

> 1)	My vision of the Net is utopian, or I would not spell it as I do, 
> with a capitol N.  While the most likely possibility is that the Net 
> will simply mirror current society, a Net of this structure would fail 
> to realize its potential as an agent of social change.

I often use the term "the Net" as well, but perhaps this usage is
skewing our thinking in the very direction we mostly despise: the
creation of a monolithic entity,  as epitomized in "the" National
Information Infrastructure. Perhaps we should be thinking in terms of
"many nets," "many communcations channels." Come to think of it,
"cyberspace," though sometimes hackneyed (hackerneyed?), captures it
best, at least for me.

> 3)	Current arguments for regulation of cryptography by government 
> agencies depend on the argument they are maintaining their current 
> abilities in the brave new world of cyberspace.  I argue that even if 
> this were the case, we have a responsibility to do more than simply 
> maintain the status quo.  This argument can be mapped to possible future 
> objections by authorities.

Not the best one-paragraph argument for crypto I've ever seen. But I
don't disagree.

> 4)	It is the responsibility of the information haves to spread their 
> knowledge to the information have-nots.  A Net which allows the economic 
> exploitation of information have-nots by those with the information is, 
> while perhaps profitable, immoral.  Information wants to be free.  
> Knowledge which is not of a personal nature should be freely accessible.

I disagree with nearly everything here! If I know how to design
circuits, and some "have-not" does not, what is wrong with that? Is
knowledge to be made illegal? Are consultants, writers, designers,
etc. to be told they cannot use "the Net"?

Arghh! Words fail me. Perhaps our ideologies are just too far apart.

> 5)	Along with these positive potentials, it is possible for the Net 
> to be constructed in such a way as to allow the formation of the most 
> powerful authoritarian societies the world has ever seen.  The potential 
> for the death of the Individual, just as for the empowerment of the 
> Individual, is very real.  We must work to prevent totalitarianism.

And part of preventing totalitarianism means not interfering with
economic transactions made by folks. See how this applies to your
point above.

> 6)	The Net is no better than its users.  Current crises of economic 
> inequality, of homelessness and hunger, will not be affected by the Net 
> unless we work to change them in pre-Net society.  People cannot 
> participate in a democratic society if they are not educated to a minimal 
> level required for functioning in that society.  This is the crux of our 
> societal problems, as well as the crux of possible problems with the Net.

A platitude. Ditto for "End Hunger Now" and "Save the Dolphins."

> 7)	It is better to help oneUs fellow human than to hurt.  It is 
> better to give than to receive.  Equally, one human has an enormous 
> capacity to injure and exploit another human.  We must decide which 
> ability we wish to empower, and judge which we actually do.

It's OK that you believe this, of course, but I fail to see any real
links with what it is we're doing, what crypto and digital privacy is
all about, etc. My fear is that these nice thoughts will be used by
others, especially politicians, to their own ends.

> 8)	There are fundamental problems with the structure of society.  
> Realizing the democratic vision of the Net is a way to re-structure 
> society.  My hope is that this restructuring will create a better 
> society than the one I know.  I recognize it can be worse-- much worse.  
> With vigilance, it will not be.

Be sure you read up on the problems with "democracies." (For the most
part, I'm opposed to democracies. Too many issues to go into right
now, but I can if there's interest.)

> 9)	My beliefs are hopelessly utopian.  I have faith in democratic 
> principles to shape society into a more just social hierarchy.  This 

Instead of so much talk of democracy, think of _free choice_. Is
"deomcratic input" needed in determining what books get published,
what magazines are created and sold, what CDs get produced? No, the
"market" decides. Not perfectly, not to everyone's liking, and
"injustices" do occur. But far better that the success of a book or a
CD depend on customer willingness to buy than that some committee or
democratic vote has decreed that 2 Live Crew is not needed.

The extension of this notion to cyberspace is both obvious and
natural. 

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

I don't think the net will ever be a huge monolithic entity.
I suspect it will continue to be very much like the phone system.
There are PBX's and large switches, some in and some out of the US.
Some are owned by governments, some by schools, some by large
companies.  There is no monolithic "phone system," but many.  Almost
no one thinks about them.

Adam


Tim wrote:

| John Blair says he welcomes comments and criticism, so here goes:
| 
| > 1)	My vision of the Net is utopian, or I would not spell it as I do, 
| > with a capitol N.  While the most likely possibility is that the Net 
| > will simply mirror current society, a Net of this structure would fail 
| > to realize its potential as an agent of social change.
| 
| I often use the term "the Net" as well, but perhaps this usage is
| skewing our thinking in the very direction we mostly despise: the
| creation of a monolithic entity,  as epitomized in "the" National
| Information Infrastructure. Perhaps we should be thinking in terms of
| "many nets," "many communcations channels." Come to think of it,
| "cyberspace," though sometimes hackneyed (hackerneyed?), captures it
| best, at least for me.

-- 
Adam Shostack 				       adam@bwh.harvard.edu

Politics.  From the greek "poly," meaning many, and ticks, a small,
annoying bloodsucker.

Have you signed the anti-Clipper petition?