No Subject

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> That being said let it be known that I consider the following as a
> "Cypherpunk victory."
>
> 1.  Complete freedom of technology, particularly encryption technology,
	       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> regulated only by market forces.  This implies the lack of import/export
> restrictions, and a complete absence of projects designed to limit
			       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> technology, or to standardize it for nefarious ends like Clipper.
  ^^^^^^^^^^

I think you overgeneralize.  No limits on toxic waste incinerators, low-mileage automobiles, unsafe medical devices, genetically tampered food, or nuclear reactors?  "Market forces" in such cases positively encourage dangerous technology (e.g. incinerators are superficially cheap) or are marked by their inability to distinguish the good from the crap (e.g. medical devices).

We agree about crypto, but not all tech is crypto.  :)


=======================================================================
     Crim Tideson                     Privacy is its own justification.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAwUBLpCIPqvOblMnt4MdAQEgRgP/XNNQ/T/RvLnd7Rhu8OxCNlXhez8Dqt0h
mJfJ172h8QZr0TSr9jxOt6720Z5+lKGZJbP62I5OZEeufifwTXn1Q9Il1Sq4BEWA
mUFbs1mu/v88xVReuNXie5e09R7cRa4cZ8W0aGQ2+ceCBTEvJ/z8Cqps93ZucL9j
ZDtO93NM78k=
=FcUP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Anonymous scripsit
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> > That being said let it be known that I consider the following as a
> > "Cypherpunk victory."
> >
> > 1.  Complete freedom of technology, particularly encryption technology,
> 	       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > regulated only by market forces.  This implies the lack of import/export
> > restrictions, and a complete absence of projects designed to limit
> 			       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > technology, or to standardize it for nefarious ends like Clipper.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I think you overgeneralize.  No limits on toxic waste incinerators,
>low-mileage automobiles, unsafe medical devices, genetically tampered food, 
>or nuclear reactors?  "Market forces" in such cases positively encourage
>dangerous technology (e.g. incinerators are superficially cheap) or are 
>markedby their inability to distinguish the good from the crap (e.g. medical
>devices).

It is you who have overgeneralized.  No limits on technology certainly 
does not mean allowing low tech and poor incinerators to continue operating.
The fact that low mileage cars still drive is a result of poor markets 
than anything else (baring colletables).  How would you argue that some 
low mileage cars are the result of a no limitations on technology policy?  
Unsafe medical devices?  I would say this is a problem with testing technology, 
not a lack of limitation on technological advance.  Genetically tampered 
food?  Why is this dangerous?  Have any evidence?  Most of the 
livestock/crops you eat today have been altered in one way or another, be 
it selective breeding, low tech botanical splicing, or genetic/hormonal 
therapy.  You see this as a regression?

You never make the distinction between regulation designed to promote and 
regulation designed to deter technological advance.  Clipper is clearly 
designed to set a standard and defuse the market which has advanced 
strong cryptography.  It is designed to WEAKEN technology, make it 
counter-productive to it's goal (in the case of cryptography, security 
against all attackers).  What lack of regulation does this?  Market 
forces are lathargic, sometimes they need a boost.  I propose this boost 
be accomplished with motivators like tax breaks, market assisters and 
privatization.  When Germany wanted to promote environmentally sound 
packaging and manufacture, they started a program called Gruun Punkt (The 
Green Point)  They allow manufactures to place the green point sticker on 
their products provided they meet XYZ specifications.  This is the way to 
promote technological advance, NOT by over regulation, centralization, 
collectivization and stagnation.  The pattern of the administration 
crippling markets because it is afraid it cannot keep pace is obnoxious.  
If we were to all keep pace with the Federal Government, we'd all still 
be wearing loin cloths.  Anyone who thinks the Federal Government is the 
driving force behind the majority of technological advancement (aside the 
space program and military hardware) needs to take a good look.

> 
> We agree about crypto, but not all tech is crypto.  :)
> 

I'm not even sure we agree about crypto, considering you don't seem to 
understand, or at least express the difference between Crypto regulation and 
emissions testing.


> =======================================================================
>      Crim Tideson                     Privacy is its own justification.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6
[...]
> 
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 

-uni- Dark

-- 
073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Crim Tideson writes:

> > That being said let it be known that I consider the following as a
> > "Cypherpunk victory."
> >
> > 1.  Complete freedom of technology, particularly encryption technology,
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > regulated only by market forces.  This implies the lack of import/export
> > restrictions, and a complete absence of projects designed to limit
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > technology, or to standardize it for nefarious ends like Clipper.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^

> I think you overgeneralize.  No limits on toxic waste incinerators,
> low-mileage automobiles, unsafe medical devices, genetically tampered
> food, or nuclear reactors?  "Market forces" in such cases positively
> encourage dangerous technology (e.g. incinerators are superficially
> cheap) or are marked by their inability to distinguish the good from the
> crap (e.g. medical devices).

Who decides what's good and what's crap?

Let me see if I understand.  Are you advocating that personal choice in
medical devices, food, etc., be supplanted by government dictate?

Do you understand that in many cases, a person is interested in strong
cryptography just so that she can make her own choices in such matters,
free of interference by a do-gooder who thinks he knows better than she?
That she sees crypto as a way to defend against him (e.g. by buying
``unsafe medical devices'' through BlackNet)?

``Market forces'' are just the sum of personal choices.

	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLpIRDMDhz44ugybJAQFVXwP/b55FYnEtdtviLZMeWovqd4L5nB4SVkpK
4st4aP2wvIp2AR8Zzn5X8SEufOunq96qy0QfMPEBwHqMD0eAs1rZbItjX0lFZ2VB
3uSJ+Ah45qb5IEnwQbYq36a3pgROfr2dvDyM/8pRnyCOeT1MY6xVZO9+6TZf9AA6
hEtDK9CH+5c=
=Ol27
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

John E. Kreznar scripsit
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> Crim Tideson writes:
> 
> > > That being said let it be known that I consider the following as a
> > > "Cypherpunk victory."
> > >
> > > 1.  Complete freedom of technology, particularly encryption technology,
> >                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > regulated only by market forces.  This implies the lack of import/export
> > > restrictions, and a complete absence of projects designed to limit
> >                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > technology, or to standardize it for nefarious ends like Clipper.
> >   ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> > I think you overgeneralize.  No limits on toxic waste incinerators,
> > low-mileage automobiles, unsafe medical devices, genetically tampered
> > food, or nuclear reactors?  "Market forces" in such cases positively
> > encourage dangerous technology (e.g. incinerators are superficially
> > cheap) or are marked by their inability to distinguish the good from the
> > crap (e.g. medical devices).
> 
> Who decides what's good and what's crap?
> 
> Let me see if I understand.  Are you advocating that personal choice in
> medical devices, food, etc., be supplanted by government dictate?
> 
> Do you understand that in many cases, a person is interested in strong
> cryptography just so that she can make her own choices in such matters,
> free of interference by a do-gooder who thinks he knows better than she?
> That she sees crypto as a way to defend against him (e.g. by buying
> ``unsafe medical devices'' through BlackNet)?

This is especially true with products that are pulled from the market to 
save the average (read idiot) consumer from him/herself.  Or products put 
there for the same reason.

The amount of law that is intended to safeguard the world and cater to 
the bottom of the barrel when it comes to intellect and intelligence is 
significant.

I really don't want a function on all cars sold in the United States 
which prevents people from starting their car with the clutch engaged.  I 
actually find use for starting with the clutch engaged.  I can't stand 
ABS, and can usually threshold brake much more effectively than ABS can 
pulse brake.  I turn ABS off.  It's an idiot button.  It's the product of 
a culture that presses the button on the ATM machine, but has no idea 
what's going on behind the screen.

Who's to tell me I have to have ABS or the "safety starter" if I don't 
want the thing?

Who's to tell me that I need a backdoor in my crypto?

Where do you draw the line?  Outlaw sugar perhaps?  It would save 
consumers millions in dental bills.

> 
> ``Market forces'' are just the sum of personal choices.
>

And a "failed market" is when the market doesn't match up with the 
administrator's choices.


> 	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
> 	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.3a
[...]
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 

-uni- (Dark)

-- 
073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!

Black Unicorn writes:
$ Who's to tell me I have to have ABS or the "safety starter" if I don't 
$ want the thing?
$ Who's to tell me that I need a backdoor in my crypto?
$ Where do you draw the line?  Outlaw sugar perhaps?  It would save 
$ consumers millions in dental bills.

Uh-oh. I *really* don't have the time to get drawn into this one, but
I'll offer a brief response.

Choosing the place to draw the line is indeed the crux of the matter IMHO.
I try to draw it at the point where one person's misuse of technology 
starts to hurt another person (which often begs the question, I know !).

Considering some of your examples:
Offhand it seems no-one but the driver could have a direct problem from
using a car w/o the "safety starter", so I'd say that shouldn't be imposed.
I don't drive stick, so I may well be missing a crucial technical point here.

OTOH I can see that ABS could stop a lot of slow/non-alert people from
slamming their cars into me & mine; I trust the technology more than the
people who would be replacing it. I'm happy that it's a fairly standard 
feature, although this seems to be more a result of market demand than 
regulation.

Your mention of outlawing sugar calls to mind some debates about smoking bans.
Here IMHO the line is clear. When you eat sugar next to me, you're not 
doing me any harm unless I'm forced to pay your dental bills. In sharp 
contrast, I consider smoking in company to be assault with a deadly 
weapon. My choice of self-defense in this case is legislation preventing
anyone from smoking in my airspace. I have no problem with people smoking
in private where the smoke's never going to harm me.

Of course, the explosive success of bullshit litigation (strongly aided
IMHO by our lowest-common-denominator jury selection system) has played
a major role in inducing companies & the govt. to go overboard protecting
people from their own idiocy.  I just want to be protected from other
people's idiocy :)

I won't touch on the question of required backdoor installation....

-L. McCarthy
Send me mail using "Subject: remailer-help" for an autoreply about Underdog

Lewis McCarthy scripsit


[...]

> 
> Choosing the place to draw the line is indeed the crux of the matter IMHO.
> I try to draw it at the point where one person's misuse of technology 
> starts to hurt another person (which often begs the question, I know !).

We're basically on the same wavelength after all.

> Considering some of your examples:
[...]

> OTOH I can see that ABS could stop a lot of slow/non-alert people from
> slamming their cars into me & mine; I trust the technology more than the
> people who would be replacing it. I'm happy that it's a fairly standard 
> feature, although this seems to be more a result of market demand than 
> regulation.

My point (poorly expressed) was that making these mandatory would annoy me.
I'm actually pleased with ABS as a market function.

> Your mention of outlawing sugar calls to mind some debates about smoking bans.
> Here IMHO the line is clear. When you eat sugar next to me, you're not 
> doing me any harm unless I'm forced to pay your dental bills. In sharp 
> contrast, I consider smoking in company to be assault with a deadly 
> weapon. My choice of self-defense in this case is legislation preventing
> anyone from smoking in my airspace. I have no problem with people smoking
> in private where the smoke's never going to harm me.

You make the massive leap in logic here that eludes the legislators.
It's the impact on others in the SPECIFIC and not the aggregate that 
should be used to determine limitations on technology.

I tend to preach absolutism in deregulation (or near to it) because 
allowing distinction threatens to put legislators in the position of 
deciding where the line is.  You think I want to be forced to buy an ABS 
car because the average driver is an idiot and because Driving School is 
a joke?  Of course not.  I refuse to be bound by the national average.

> Of course, the explosive success of bullshit litigation (strongly aided
> IMHO by our lowest-common-denominator jury selection system) has played
> a major role in inducing companies & the govt. to go overboard protecting
> people from their own idiocy.  I just want to be protected from other
> people's idiocy :)

I don't see the connection here.  How does the jury system contribute to 
government intervention?  Whatever the jury verdict in a civil suit, the 
government still has to say "We can't allow all these law suits, let's 
ban X so there wont be any more."  You can have 40 billion in judgements 
against KY jelly, that doesn't mean government needs to be involved.  The 
judgements, the publicity, and the civil system have SOLVED the problem.  
Those who might have had problems with KY have been compensated, those 
who are smart consumers will avoid KY, and KY will either go out of 
business, make massive efforts to correct the problem and get the 
information out there that that problem has been corrected, or it can 
afford the suits.  I'd prefer to see a consumer monitoring program, 
listing complaints, lawsuits and quality ratings on products available 
via net/1-800 number and etc.  A "good housekeeping" rating of A to F for 
example.  If this information system is handled properly and given enough 
detail and depth there are no such problems.  The market will regulate 
and the incentives will be to provide the best product, at the lowest 
cost.

Information is the key, and if the consumer cannot bother him or herself 
to check out the product they buy I'm not sympathetic.

Of course one cypherpunk is sure to say: "Nice, but not about cryptography."

Part of the problem with cryptography and technology today is that 
consumers have little if any information about the field.  What a shame 
it would be if the market were killed by government "we know what's best 
for you before you've even seen it" before it ever got big.

> I won't touch on the question of required backdoor installation....
> 
> -L. McCarthy
> Send me mail using "Subject: remailer-help" for an autoreply about Underdog
> 

-uni- (Dark)

[Follow ups to alt.market.systems]

-- 
073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Lewis McCarthy <lmccarth@ducie.cs.umass.edu> writes:

> My choice of self-defense in this case is legislation preventing
> anyone from smoking in my airspace.

What, exactly, is ``your'' airspace?

If you want legislative control over what's yours, maybe you should also
escrow your private crypto keys with them?

	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLpJ7/MDhz44ugybJAQHOcwP+LIY9rwLvrasd3IoidQ39Oigy6N22ZEOL
aZ9TZJx0tN1ywTwfiBLP9iNSOXKU9vpziDdy55AwSZZuLyWutUDsTDsjLIufDhBm
7kwceS2LrrPZNJpEGeyRBWv+CBOkN5URnsD3Rm+rxrBG0a6LdyTUupp6KVIz34xh
YQNjss0r0jc=
=i8zw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

John Kreznar writes:
$ L. McCarthy <lmccarth@ducie.cs.umass.edu> writes:
$ > My choice of self-defense in this case is legislation preventing
$ > anyone from smoking in my airspace.
$ What, exactly, is ``your'' airspace?

The air I breathe. You don't have a right to make me breathe your smoke.
As long as you keep your smoke to yourself, I'm happy.

$ If you want legislative control over what's yours, 

First of all, I shouldn't have to ask someone to stop trying to kill me.
Beyond that, if I ask someone to desist, she may refuse. Then I can either
a) personally force her to stop, or b) have a third party force her to
stop. In some cases, I'll be unable to stop her on my own, and in any case
it's safer for me to have a third party take care of it. So yeah, when the
assholes out there try to fuck with what I consider mine, I need some folks
in blue suits to step in and shove them out of the way.

-L. McCarthy
Send me mail using "Subject: remailer-help" for an autoreply about Underdog