(fwd) Re: The Implications of Strong Cryptography

Here's a message I wrote to talk.politics.crypto, etc., detailing more
on "anarchy" (as it relates to crypto anarchy). This may not be
"code," but it relates to the implications of strong crypto.

Detweiler has been very active in this group, making his usual
denunciations and even confirming that tmp = Detweiler (as if there
was any doubt). You have been forewarned.

--Tim

Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,talk.politics.crypto,alt.politics.datahighway,comp.org.eff.talk
From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: The Implications of Strong Cryptography
Message-ID: <tcmayCprA5G.AEG@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 19:29:40 GMT

Russell Nelson (nelson@crynwr.crynwr.com) wrote:
: In article <tcmayCppq0I.Dyu@netcom.com> tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) writes:

:    The combination of world-spanning networks (already here) and strong
:    cryptography (also here) will change a lot of things. Consulting is
:    changing, taxation is changing (though the dinosaur's brains hasn't
:    gotten the signal in all fullness yet), markets will change, and even
:    espionage will change. The implications are pretty amazing.

: Exciting, but scary.  Whenever big changes happen in society, people
: get scared, hurt and desperate.  And when that happens, you get
: Hitlers created.  Read Toffler's War and Anti-War for a more
: pessimistic outlook on things.

All the more reason to spread the tools and methods that decentralize
power, that effectively reduce the role of nations.

I routinely interact with, in speech and in other transactions, people
from around the world. They are my true neighbors in cyberspace, not
the folks who live across the street from me.

Strong crypto is not needed for all aspects of this situation, of
course. But strong crypto ensures that central governments cannot
easily limit these world-ranging contacts and cannot restrict the
nature and number of these transactions.

By the way, lest there be any confusion about the term "anarchy," it
is not a synonym for everyobody killing everybody else, etc. Rather,
the term has a well-established meaning: "no head," as in no "arch"
running things.

The books we read, the movies we see, etc., are "anarchic" in nature.
It doesn't mean we can see any movies we wish, without regard to
whether someone has produced them or not, or whether we can pay to get
it, and so forth. It means there is not "authority" that decides who
gets to see which movies. (Yes, MPAA ratings, obscenity laws...minor
deviations, no pun intended.)

Our networks of friends are essentially run anarchically. We deal with
some people, avoid others, all without "laws." (Yes, laws come into
play if we kill our friends, cheat them in business deals, etc. This
doesn't change the essential fact that our relationships are handled
without guidance from a ruler, a honcho, an "arch.")

Many other such example abound. In fact, when I explain what
anarcho-capitalism is (a term of art in libertarian circles), and how
anarchy means running your own life--with market and other
consequences your actions--most people realize that anarchy is
actually the norm, that the State has actually minimal involvement
(fortunately) in day-to-day decisions.

As others have noted, libertarian ideas--shared by many folks, not
just "Libertarians"--do not mean a world of houses burning down
because fire departments don't exist, and other such ludicrous
examples.

Imagine a world in which food distribution was handled the way fire
and education is now handled (and this has not always so in the U.S.).
One would pay taxes, and get officially-approved food at People's Food
Distribution Center #5233. What could be more normal?

Now imagine someone proposing that food distribution be privatised,
that folks ought to pay for what they eat, make their own choices on
diet, and choose who to do business with. What a radical idea.
Wouldn't everybody starve? Wouldn't this be anarchy?

Yes, food distribution in the U.S. today is essentially anarchic.
Ironically, my leftist hippie friends (I live near Santa Cruz, one of
thee last remaining Meccas for them) understand this point very well:
they cherish the ability to grow food up in the mountains and then
sell it for whatever price they can get at the weekly Farmer's Market.
(They think Safeway is a corporate monopolist, depite heavy
competition in the grocery business, but that's another story.)

Anarchy is about freedom and choice. It's really the norm, and not
nearly as bad as it sounds. I'd say give it a try, but the fact is
that you're practicing it right now. Think about it.


--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."

On 13 May Timothy C. May wrote:

> By the way, lest there be any confusion about the term "anarchy," it
> is not a synonym for everyobody killing everybody else, etc. Rather,
> the term has a well-established meaning: "no head," as in no "arch"
> running things.

A 100+ years ago the anarchists (Kropotkin et al) were ousted from the
mainstream socialist movement (Marx et al) mainly because they opposed
strong government. Some years later came a decade of freak murders of 
several heads of state and other prominent persons by disillusioned
anarchists. The image of anarchist = mad assassin has stayed in public
mind ever since and will most probably not change in the near future.
The original anarchists (tm) strongly denounced not only capitalism
but private ownership of everything but your most intimate belongings
(and perhaps your house, this was discussed a lot). There are still
(dis)organized remnants of the traditional anarchistic movement around,
at least in Europe. All this makes the term anarcho-capitalism rather
difficult to interpret. Crypto-anarchy, if not more of a joke, might
share a similar fate and forever associate to mad/criminal hacking
instead of liberty by cipher.

> Anarchy is about freedom and choice. It's really the norm, and not
> nearly as bad as it sounds. I'd say give it a try, but the fact is
> that you're practicing it right now. Think about it.

This is true for a literal interpretation of the word, freed of recent
historical ballast. Or perhaps my knowledge of the English language is
failing me. There might be a big difference between anarchy and anarchism.
Anyway, in spite of interpretational difficulties, I welcome the rebirth of
anarchism, the political passion of my youth, through strong crypto.

//mb

Mats Bergstrom says:
> The original anarchists (tm) strongly denounced not only capitalism
> but private ownership of everything but your most intimate belongings
> (and perhaps your house, this was discussed a lot).

Not true of all, only of some. See, for instance, the writings of
Lysander Spooner. (Spooner should be remembered as the anarchist who
nearly bankrupted the U.S. Postal Service by starting a competing
venture, The American Letter Mail Company -- the private express acts
were specifically designed to drive him out of business. I can assure
you that Spooner was quite capitalistic.)

The louder bomb-throwing 19th century anarchists have, unfortunately,
eclipsed memory of the individualist anarchists who followed very much
in the tradition of the enlightenment social-contract political
theorists and who believed in private property.

In any case, this is getting afield of cryptography.

Perry