Crime and punishment in cyberspace - 3 of 3

All this brings us to a related issue - another one hinging on principles:
Do cypherpunks accept the need for wiretapping?

Wiretapping is necessary to solve many 'crimes'. If we accept that these crimes
are important enough to justify wiretapping, than there is little difference
between wiretapping analog phones and tapping data.

The EFF and other organizations have pursued the laudable goals of extending
laws guaranteeing freedom of expression, privacy etc to cyberspace, adapting 
them, as and where necessary, to the nature and technology of digital networks.

It is only to be expected that the FBI, theoretically a socially agreed upon 
body enforcing laws made by socially agreed upon legislators, to attempt to 
extend the powers granted to it for wiretapping to cyberspace. _Adapting them,
as and where necessary (eg. digital encryption), to the nature and technology
of digital networks.

If we accept the need for wiretapping, than the only problem is to find a way
to make Clipper/DTII as protective of privacy as current analog-tapping laws;
as inconvenient as current analog tapping. If we accept the need for 
wiretapping, we can find such ways. Variants of Micali's fair crypto; an open,
publicly available no-trapdoor algorithm; a requirement that, as with primitive
exchanges, DTII'd ones would still have to be visited by LEOs to work a tap,
etc. We can then respond to the various (non-serious) calls from Freeh, Denning
et al for an 'alternative'.

Or else, if wiretapping per se does more harm to privacy than it does to crime,
call for an end to wiretapping altogether.

There is an anecdote about George Bernard Shaw (or Bertrand Russell?):
At a social event, he hypothetically asks the lady next to him whether she
would sleep with him for a million pounds. For a million pounds, she says, she
migh consider it. "Would you sleep with me for sixpence, then?" he asks. 
Outraged, she replies "What kind of woman do you think I am?" His response:
"We have already established what kind of woman you are. We are just haggling
about the price."

Rishab

(ps. no offence intended -- that's an illustratory anecdote, c'est tout)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

rishab@dxm.ernet.in said:

> All this brings us to a related issue - another one hinging on principles:
> Do cypherpunks accept the need for wiretapping?
> 
> Wiretapping is necessary to solve many 'crimes'. If we accept that these crimes
> are important enough to justify wiretapping, than there is little difference
> between wiretapping analog phones and tapping data.

As an anarchist, anarchocapitalist, crypto anarchist, etc., I prefer
to think in different terms. I don't think in terms of "rights," but
in terms of avoidance. 

Some points on wiretapping and privacy:

* If I suspect someone is plotting against me--perhaps I suspect my
neighbor across the street is preparing to torch my house--I'd have
no problem placing microphones so as to hear him. Or bugging a
girlfriend I suspected of planning to kill me for my money.

(These are personal statements, to show that I'm not a moral
absolutist, a believer in abstractions over practicality.)

* If someone else tries to wiretap or bug me, I'll seek ways to bypass
this. To fight back.

* If a band of folks called "the government" seeks my vote to "allow"
wiretaps and bugs, I'll generally shrug and still try to avoid such
laws. (I'll admit to some ambivalence and confusion here....I can
support _some_ government wiretaps, as in kidnapping cases, bomb
plotters, etc., and not others. Mostly I view governments as having no
more moral authority than I have, or that others have.)

* If, however, governments seek my approval to pass laws making
curtains illegal (because it makes surveillance harder), or requires
"conversation escrow" (all conversations must be taped, with a copy of
the tape filed with the police), and so on, then I will strongly
oppose these laws.

I don't know if this clarifies things. My preference is to avoid
talking about the "right to wiretap" and instead to take steps to make
it harder for a band of thugs to do so.

Things will get very complicated in the next few years, as sensor
technology and other privacy-invading technology gets dramatically
more powerful. To name but one example, video technology and
storage/search technology makes it trivially possible to place
traffic-monitoring cameras ubiquitously...it makes the Chaumian issues
of digicash toll payments moot. (Source on this: my brother works for
City of Los Angeles traffic department....deploying high resolution
cameras at intersections is one of his projects.)

So, do we argue for "rights" of privacy? Or do we monkeywrench such
technologies? Or do we develop tools and systems to protect our own
privacy as best we can?

Tough choices.

Thanks to Rishab for raising these issues again.


--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."

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 8-Jun-94 Re: Crime and punishment
in.. by Timothy C. May@netcom.co 
> So, do we argue for "rights" of privacy? Or do we monkeywrench such
> technologies? Or do we develop tools and systems to protect our own
> privacy as best we can?
> 
> Tough choices.

No, easy choices. I choose D: All of the above. "We" are not a unified
hive-mind. There is room for those who belive in government and who try
to make it more bengin, and for those who don't participate in
government and spray-paint camera lenses.

Jer

darklord@cmu.edu | "it's not a matter of rights  / it's just a matter of war
finger me for my |  don't have a reason to fight / they never had one before"
   Geek Code and |                                    -Ministry, "Hero"
  PGP public key | http://www.cs.cmu.edu:8001/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr25/jbde/