Re: HIT MEN

[For some odd reason, I'm only seeing Sandy's posts on this subject, not
those of Merriman, Barber, or Mays.]


>Patrick missed my irony.  Murders can't hurt any escrow's
>reputation.  To do so, they have to admit to being murderers who
>were stiffed by the escrow.  NOT BLOODY LIKELY.  For murder
>escrows, a positive reputation is meaningless.  They can't--nor
>can anyone else--risk exposure of such negative information.
>Escrows that admittedly engage in abetting criminal acts can have
>NO MEANINGFUL REPUTATIONS.

That's just not true. Currently, many organizations--some known widely,
some shadowing, some essentially anonymous--count on their reputations for
being efficient, cold-blooded murderers as a means to scare off
competitors, increase their market value, etc. From Jamaican gangs who
execute the families of their targets to the CIA's Phoenix Program
operatives who mutilated their victims horribly, such "reps" are highly
useful.

To paraphrase Sandy, "BLOODY LIKELY."

Admitting to engaging in a criminal activity is not at issue--remember, all
parties are cryptographically protected and what they "admit" to doing
cannot reflect upon their physical/legal identities, only their digital
reputations.

And those who contract for such services, via their pseudonyms, can "admit"
to wanting to buy such a service. (The issue of whether a well-respected
nym like "Locke" would want to publicize a failed hit on his arch-enemy
"Demosthenes" is a separate issue, which I won't conflate with this one.)

Gambling is illegal in most places, unless run by the state. And yet people
gamble, illegally. They use bookies. Bookies who are doing illegal things,
as the gamblers are. And yet if they get stiffed by a bookie, which
_sometimes_ happens, they tell their friends, family, etc., and the
reputation ripples spread.

Taking Sandy's "For murder escrows, a positive reputation is meaningless.
They can't--nor can anyone else--risk exposure of such negative
information. Escrows that admittedly engage in abetting criminal acts can
have NO MEANINGFUL REPUTATIONS." argument, are we to assume that this
applies to illegal betting? That stiffed bettors won't speak up because
there are "Escrows that admittedly engage in abetting criminal acts can
have NO MEANINGFUL REPUTATIONS"?

Crypto barely changes things, except to make outside interference less
likely. If, for example, Black Unicorn offers to transfer 100 Ghost Marks
to Pr0duct Cypher, for some C programming, and he doesn't feel he got his
money's worth, he can publicize it. Maybe we believe Black Unicorn, maybe
we don't. Maybe we ask to hear Pr0duct Cypher's side of the story. Maybe we
suggest that SOLONg act as a third party escrow agent. And so forth. Not
perfect, in some abstract sense of ultimate truth always coming out, but
reputations do indeed matter.

And whether the deeds contracted for are heinous or noble depends on your
point of view. To William Colby and the Viet Cong, the taking of ears and
other body parts by the Phoenix assassins was a fearsomely reputable thing
to do, regardless of what the 4H Club in Skokie might have thought about
it.

If I contract with "Sandy's Salvage--You Pay, We Slay," I want to hear that
they've got some satisfied customers. (Yes, flooding of reputations is an
issue. Same issues as arise in DC Nets. Same kinds of solutions.)

Again, I've written too much, so I'll stop for now.

--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."

Timothy C. May writes
> Gambling is illegal in most places, unless run by the state. And yet people
> gamble, illegally. They use bookies. Bookies who are doing illegal things,
> as the gamblers are. And yet if they get stiffed by a bookie, which
> _sometimes_ happens, they tell their friends, family, etc., and the
> reputation ripples spread.
> 
> Taking Sandy's "For murder escrows, a positive reputation is meaningless.
> They can't--nor can anyone else--risk exposure of such negative
> information. Escrows that admittedly engage in abetting criminal acts can
> have NO MEANINGFUL REPUTATIONS." argument, are we to assume that this
> applies to illegal betting? That stiffed bettors won't speak up because
> there are "Escrows that admittedly engage in abetting criminal acts can
> have NO MEANINGFUL REPUTATIONS"?

Illegal betting is merely illegal.  Murder is also immoral.  

This really does make a difference to reputations.

For example if you have a criminal record for shoplifting a
packet of cigarettes, most bosses will not hire you.  But
speeding or even drunk driving will not seriously affect
your employment prospects.

Similarly tax evasion convictions seem to have little effect
on ones credit rating.

,

James Donald writes:

> Illegal betting is merely illegal.  Murder is also immoral.  
> 
> This really does make a difference to reputations.

I'm not persuaded. Reputation is not having a nice feeling, it is
expecting that an agent will act as he is expected to act (not an
exact definition).

To someone who wants to hire a murderer--the NSA's hit teams, for
example--the "reputation" of a potentil hire is his track record,
basically. Reputations are not scalar properties, seen identically by
all persons, but are essentially confidence levels for specific
functions to be peformed, or services to be rendered.

Carlos the Jackal may or may not have deserved his reputation, but it
was his reputation to his potential employers that mattered, not our
moral judgments about the bombs he planted or the planes he hijacked.

--Tim May

-- 
Warning: I'm using Netcom as my Internet service, and both mail and
News are being delayed by up to several days. I may not be able to
respond promptly, and may have missed other posts and messages.
..........................................................................
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.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay

James Donald writes:

> > Illegal betting is merely illegal.  Murder is also immoral.  
> > 
> > This really does make a difference to reputations.

Timothy C. May writes
> I'm not persuaded. Reputation is not having a nice feeling, it is
> expecting that an agent will act as he is expected to act (not an
> exact definition).

True.  And I, and most people, would expect someone who does
murder for hire to lie and cheat.

I have found that people usually act with unwavering consistency
in this type of thing and are highly predictable - not that I
have known murderers, but I have known thieves.


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

Timothy C. May writes
> 
> James Donald writes:
> 
> > Illegal betting is merely illegal.  Murder is also immoral.  
> > 
> > This really does make a difference to reputations.
> 
> I'm not persuaded. Reputation is not having a nice feeling, it is
> expecting that an agent will act as he is expected to act (not an
> exact definition).
> 
> ....
> 
> Carlos the Jackal may or may not have deserved his reputation, but it
> was his reputation to his potential employers that mattered, not our
> moral judgments about the bombs he planted or the planes he hijacked.

Carlos claimed to be a political terrorist, not a simple mercenary -
to be motivated by moral considerations.  This claim was probably
a simple lie, but true or false, if he had claimed to be a simple
hitman for hire, he would have been out of business fast.

Large scale, well organized illegal gambling does exist, and
operates smoothly on a basis of trust.

No large scale murder for hire organizations exist, and such
operations as do exist operate very erraticly because of
extreme distrust and treachery.

Morality is more than just game theory.  It is game theory plus
our methods for categorizing acts in terms that we can apply
game theory to.

Honoring an illegal bet has much in common with speaking the
truth, paying ones debts, and honoring a contract.  

Honoring a murder for hire contract, whether by the murderer
or the payer, has little in common with these things.



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