Crime and punishment in cyberspace - 1 of 3

Uhh. When I started this thread with "Cyberspace is by nature crime-free," I
meant crime as what at least _I_ perceive as morally wrong enough to justify
the intervention of society as a whole, usually represented by functionaries
of the state - police, judiciary, etc.; and NOT what may or not be wrong in 
the eyes of existing law, which as we all know, is an ass.

Unless we want a totally "everyone for him/herself" society (which is 
contradictory - society is a framework or protocol by which individuals 
interact with each other), and become like Rwanda, say, we need the 
intervention of [police/state/society/collective] to ensure that basic social
agreements are kept - thou shalt not rape, for instance. Even anarchist Tim May
has in previous posts conceded the possible need for a police force to 
investigate murders.

Now to cyberspace...

I greatly believe in the Internet as a model for society. While there are 
incompatibilities between a society on cyberspace and one on the streets, what
is needed is an adaption of cybersociety to the "real world" NOT vice versa.

Out of all 'crimes' listed in previous posts by Matthew Gream and others, the
only one I accept as possibly requiring society intervention in the information
age is that of intellectual property. The extent of such intervention is 
debatable. 

I will summarize my attitude to the other points with this: saying that 
cracking an ordinary Unix system is fraud is like saying that walking into 
a field protected perhaps by a tattered hedge is 'breaking in.'

Unless you want a nanny state, you have to protect yourself, and your rights.
Unless you want a jungle, you have to accept intervention by agents of the 
society you live in, when protection is far to difficult for an individual.

You expect police help to catch a murderer. You don't expect police help to
catch someone who stole money that fell out of your torn pocket. (_I_ don't.)

Continued...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh                                    They came for the Jews,
                                    and I was silent because I was not a Jew;
rishab@dxm.ernet.in                        They came for the Trade Unionists,
                                     and I did not protest, because I did not
Voice/Fax/Data +91 11 6853410                        belong to a trade union;
Voicemail +91 11 3760335      They came for the Catholics, and I said nothing
                                                because I was not a Catholic;
H 34C Saket                                        And then they came for me.
New Delhi                            There was no one left to say anything...
INDIA                                                   ----Father Niemoeller

On Wed, 8 Jun 1994 rishab@dxm.ernet.in wrote:

> Uhh. When I started this thread with "Cyberspace is by nature crime-free," I
> meant crime as what at least _I_ perceive as morally wrong enough to justify
> the intervention of society as a whole, usually represented by functionaries
> of the state - police, judiciary, etc.; and NOT what may or not be wrong in 
> the eyes of existing law, which as we all know, is an ass.
> 

I like to use the Common Law distiction between Malum in Se and Malum 
Prohibitum.  ("wrong because it is wrong" and "wrong because it is 
prohibited.")  There are lots of "legislative crimes" that are creatures 
of their time and place.  Cyberspace is a hard place to commit real 
wrongs in.  Those of us of a more libertarian bent think that the major 
benefit of cyberspace is that it makes certain crimes like "legislation" 
less effective.  Note that Common Law crimes were "discovered" by judges 
without legislatures.

DCF

"Was there ever anything so impolite as a group of guys sitting around 
ruling others?"

rishab@dxm.ernet.in writes
> Unless we want a totally "everyone for him/herself" society (which is 
> contradictory - society is a framework or protocol by which individuals 
> interact with each other), and become like Rwanda,

Rwanda was and is a police state.  If the revolutionaries win, as
seems likely, it will become a more law abiding police state.

-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our    |
property, because of the kind of animals that we |         James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from |
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.     |         jamesd@netcom.com

I've stayed out of this thread on what's criminal and what's not,
mainly because I'm spending all my waking hours (and more) trying to
finish up the %&*#$%^$ FAQ, but I perk up when my name is mentioned:

rishab@dxm.ernet.in said:

> Unless we want a totally "everyone for him/herself" society (which is 
> contradictory - society is a framework or protocol by which individuals 
> interact with each other), and become like Rwanda, say, we need the 
> intervention of [police/state/society/collective] to ensure that basic social
> agreements are kept - thou shalt not rape, for instance. Even anarchist Tim May
> has in previous posts conceded the possible need for a police force to 
> investigate murders.

But generally I don't favor such governmental police forces, and
especially not national police forces. (That is, cops should be
local to the community...and perhaps even privately
contracted-for...no time here (or direct relevance) to go into how
such privatization works.)

The Rwanda example is especially important. It is mainly two rival
"statist" camps that are killing civilians, butcheing members of the
rival camp, etc. And of course the farmers and peasants were long ago
disarmed by the Tutsi and Hutu "governments," in the interests of
ensuring safety and order (codewords), with predictable results.

Same thing happened in Somalia...jeep-loads of teenaged "soldiers"
terrorizing, raping, looting, and pillaging. A familiar pattern.

States and statists have killed several hundred million people this
century, in various purges, forced famines, holocausts, etc. (the
names of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot come to mind). This makes
the "dangers" of cyberspatial pedophiles and tax cheats rather
invisible by comparison.

I don't often rant here about crypto anarchy, having written about it
extensively, but it's important for folks to understand that it is not
about tearing down all governments and adopting a "red of tooth and
claw" jungled survival situation. Rather, it involves personal forms
of withdrawing from the system of government, to various extents.
Initially in cyberspace--just like this list (this list spans many
nations, with no intervention by states, no legal system...sounds like
"anarchy" to me...). As tax collection wanes, as interactions in
cyberspace come to be even more important than they are today, crypto
anarchy becomes more important.

But of course nobody is forced into this...they can vote in their
local elections, appoint censors of what they see in non-crypto
channels, vote to tax transactions they can identify, and form armies
to invade North Korea for the "sin" of doing what our "friends" like
South Africa, Israel, and even Risha's own India have been doing for
20 years. (Sorry to digress on this last point, and I have no brief
for North Korea....I just hate Orwellian propaganda disguising
hypocrisy.)

Enough on anarchy for now. Back to the FAQ.

--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."