Black Cryptoanarchy (KKK, monopolies, contract killing)

I would like to thank Blanc Weber, Tim May, and Duncan Frissell for their
responses to my message on the subject of employer hiring practices and
liberty in a society.  Tim and Duncan seem to be concerned with the freedom
of an employer to make whatever hiring decisions he prefers.  Blanc seems
to be concerned principally with the soundness and health of the business
entity.

I am trying to understand the arguments for these points of view... I
consider myself to be extremely "liberal" in my political philosophy, and I
have a lot of respect for the arguments of libertarians.  But I am
continually pulled back to the "test case" issue of racist employment
practices.  This is the case where the argument is most difficult for me to
buy.  I am not sure whether Blanc would hold that businesses should be free
to engage in racist hiring policies if that is their decision, but it seems
clear that Tim May does hold this position, and I understand that this is
in fact the classic libertarian position.  The argument seems to be that in
a free society, natural cooperative processes will provide a form of
"autoregulation" to discourage the widespread development of oppression of
specific classes of individuals.

There further seems to be an assumption that the tools of strong crypto
will facilitate this system of checks and balances through natural
cooperative processes.  I am not convinced.  Moreover, it seems to me that
cryptoanarchy may in fact facilitate a new type of "mob rule".  For
example, imagine the development of a multitude of secret "crypto-posse"
organizations.   Individuals could join any number of these secret
societies, which might require some sort of dues payment for participancy.
They might be fleeting in duration, forming spontaneously to achieve some
specific aim (thus my term "posse").  Virtually everything about these
organizations could be secret -- their size, power, and even their very
existence.  Participating companies could secretly create trade monopolies.
Organizations such as the KKK could accrue the financial support of large
numbers of members to create strong social and economic pressures to
oppress segments of the population in specific areas, yet the source of
these pressures may be impossible to trace.

Even apart from this, the availability of truly secure anonymity, strong
encryption, and untraceable digital cash could allow contract killing to be
an openly conducted business.  For example, an anonymous news post
announces a public key which is to be used to encode a contract kill order,
along with a digital cash payment.  The person placing the contract need
only anonymously place the encrypted message in alt.test.  Perhaps it is
even possible to make it impossible to tell that the message was encrypted
with the contract killer's public key (the killer would have to attempt
decryption of all similarly encoded messages on alt.test, but that might be
quite feasible).  Thus it could be completely risk free for anyone to place
a contract on anyone else.

If there is a reason why these concerns are unfounded, I would very much
appreciate hearing refutations.  I certainly don't want any of these
possibilities to materialize, but I don't see any way around them in a
completely "cryptoanarchic" society.

Doug

___________________________________________________________________
Doug Cutrell                    General Partner
doug@OpenMind.com               Open Mind, Santa Cruz
===================================================================

Though I acknowledge that Doug's fears are real, there's one thing to
keep in mind: cryptography is not by any means a magic shield for
criminals.  It eliminates, perhaps, one avenue by which crimes might
be discovered.  However, it is most certainly not the case that
someone who places an open anonymous contract for a murder in an open
forum is doing so "risk free".  There are *plenty* of ways she might
be found out.  Likewise, big secret societies that nefariously
undermine the free world via cryptography are as vulnerable as ever to
the motivations of their own members to expose the groups in a
double-cross.

Crime is crime.  Crime (in the philosophical sense; crime against
individuals, crime against the environment, and so on, as opposed to
crime as defined by the current establishment in power) is conducted
by criminals no matter what the tools are.  Every object on the planet
is a potential accomplice to the criminal.


| GOOD TIME FOR MOVIE - GOING ||| Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com>       |
| TAKE TWA TO CAIRO.          ||| Tivoli Systems, Austin, TX:        |
|     (actual fortune cookie) ||| "Like A Little Bit of Semi-Heaven" |

(I can only respond very briefly to the excellent post Doug Cuttrell
has made....I'm trying to finish something by tonight in preparation
for tomorrow's Cypherpunks meeting in Mountain View.)

Doug has correctly figured out what strong crypto implies, and just
how badly it nukes the "liberal" view of society.

Like I said, I'll be brief, even telegraphic:

> I am trying to understand the arguments for these points of view... I
> consider myself to be extremely "liberal" in my political philosophy, and I
> have a lot of respect for the arguments of libertarians.  But I am

There's no time for any of us to write pro-libertarian essays here.
Plenty of books. Etc.

> to engage in racist hiring policies if that is their decision, but it seems
> clear that Tim May does hold this position, and I understand that this is
> in fact the classic libertarian position.  The argument seems to be that in
> a free society, natural cooperative processes will provide a form of
> "autoregulation" to discourage the widespread development of oppression of
> specific classes of individuals.

I never worry about whether my choices are "racist" or "sexist" or
"ageist" or "looksist" (a real term used here in Santa Cruz), etc.
They're just my choices. Nobody else's business. Of course, they don't
have to do business with me, either. Sounds fair to me. The original
meaning of "liberalism" (yes).

> There further seems to be an assumption that the tools of strong crypto
> will facilitate this system of checks and balances through natural
> cooperative processes.  I am not convinced.  Moreover, it seems to me that
> cryptoanarchy may in fact facilitate a new type of "mob rule".  For
> example, imagine the development of a multitude of secret "crypto-posse"

Yes, though I've called them "digilantes." Crypto Star Chambers.

> organizations.   Individuals could join any number of these secret
> societies, which might require some sort of dues payment for participancy.
> They might be fleeting in duration, forming spontaneously to achieve some
> specific aim (thus my term "posse").  Virtually everything about these
> organizations could be secret -- their size, power, and even their very
> existence.  Participating companies could secretly create trade monopolies.
> Organizations such as the KKK could accrue the financial support of large
> numbers of members to create strong social and economic pressures to
> oppress segments of the population in specific areas, yet the source of
> these pressures may be impossible to trace.

Yep. I call this the "Crypto Anarchy Principle":

The Crypto Anarchy Principle: Strong crypto permits unbreakable
encryption, unforgeable signatures, untraceable electronic messages,
and unlinkable pseudonomous identities. This ensures that some
transactions and communications can be entered into only
voluntarily. External force, law, and regulation cannot be
applied. This is "anarchy," in the sense of no outside rulers and
laws. Voluntary arrangements, back-stopped by voluntarily-arranged
institutions like escrow services, will be the only form of rule. This
is "crypto anarchy."

> Even apart from this, the availability of truly secure anonymity, strong
> encryption, and untraceable digital cash could allow contract killing to be
> an openly conducted business.  For example, an anonymous news post
> announces a public key which is to be used to encode a contract kill order,
> along with a digital cash payment.  The person placing the contract need
> only anonymously place the encrypted message in alt.test.  Perhaps it is
> even possible to make it impossible to tell that the message was encrypted
> with the contract killer's public key (the killer would have to attempt
> decryption of all similarly encoded messages on alt.test, but that might be
> quite feasible).  Thus it could be completely risk free for anyone to place
> a contract on anyone else.

Markets for assassinations--untraceable and unlinkable--have been a
topic of discussion for a long time. You'll find them explicitly
mentioned in my 1988 "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto."

Doug is to be congratulated for realizing the implications, if he
hadn't heard about them before. 

This topic has been written about by me, David Friedman, Robin Hanson,
Hal Finney, and others. A lot of stuff to consider. Not now.


> If there is a reason why these concerns are unfounded, I would very much
> appreciate hearing refutations.  I certainly don't want any of these
> possibilities to materialize, but I don't see any way around them in a
> completely "cryptoanarchic" society.

Can't be stopped. If strong crypto is allowed (and most of us don't
think even a police state could stop it at this point), then these
"voluntary associations" cannot be stopped. Hence.....

Welcome to the New Underworld Order!

(a term I have borrowed from Claire Sterling.)

--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."

Doug Cutrell writes
> The argument seems to be that in
> a free society, natural cooperative processes will provide a form of
> "autoregulation" to discourage the widespread development of oppression of
> specific classes of individuals.

Actually the argument is that who I choose to associate with is
no damned business of the state.

If you want a utiltarian argument, no problem:  Obviously laws
regulating who can associate with who, can be used, will be used,
and are being used to oppress those minority groups that are out
of favor with the state.

For example jews and Asians are not "protected groups" and the
anti discrimination laws are enforced in a selective fashion to
harass businessmen of Korean origin in California.

Obviously if some individuals choose not to associate with some
group for irrational reasons it will harm those who so choose
more than it harms the group - but only the state can enforce 
discrimination with guns, and it does, thus only state sponsored 
discrimination is significant in practice.

Plenty of Koreans have been put out of business by the state.

How many homosexuals have been put out of business by private
discrimination?

But I piss on utilitarian arguments.  From the fact that anti
discrimination laws violate peoples rights, we could have immediately
inferred that the unjust use of force would follow, and that 
this would lead to undesired and unintended outcomes, without
bothering with the specific details.


> Moreover, it seems to me that
> cryptoanarchy may in fact facilitate a new type of "mob rule".  For
> example, imagine the development of a multitude of secret "crypto-posse"
> organizations.   Individuals could join any number of these secret
> societies, which might require some sort of dues payment for participancy.
> They might be fleeting in duration, forming spontaneously to achieve some
> specific aim (thus my term "posse").

That is the plan.

Consider the excellent and great campaign of intimidation
and harassment against Cantor and Segal.  We really trashed those guys.

Hurray for cybervigilantes and Silicon cowboys.


>  Virtually everything about these
> organizations could be secret -- their size, power, and even their very
> existence. 

Right on.

It is called "freedom of association".  You will just have to get
used to it.

> If there is a reason why these concerns are unfounded, I would very much
> appreciate hearing refutations.  I certainly don't want any of these
> possibilities to materialize, but I don't see any way around them in a
> completely "cryptoanarchic" society.

Most of us hope, desire, and intend, that your worst fears will
be realized.

As for contract killings - what else is new.  Just as today you will
have to start by asking "who has motive and money to put out
a contract on X".  Of course you could prevent contract killings
by requiring everyone to carry government "escrowed" tape recordings
to record all their conversations and requiring them to keep a diary
at all times alibing their all their activities.  This would also
make it much easier to stamp out child pornography, plutonium
smuggling, and social discrimination against the politically
correct.



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