Re: Is Cyberspace Rich Enough?

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

> That theme is this: Is cyberspace, or the Net/Web/Etc., sufficiently
> rich or complex to meet our needs?

 [deleted]

> Consider how the abstractions of the World Wide Web, URLs, HTML, HTTP,
> and Web browsers have *increased the size of cyberspace* rather
> dramatically in just the past two years. More places to visit, more
> interconnectedness, more difficulties in controlling access to stuff,
> etc. Home pages containing banned material are proliferating (a la the
> Homolka-Teale ritualistic cannibalism trial in Canada, the Scientology
> material, and so on--this is not the place for me to recap this).
> Sure, ftp sites used to do this pretty well; in fact, I'm considering
> ftp sites in this "evolution" toward greater complexity (in the
> richness sense).

I agree that cyberspace is certainly becoming more complex and
interconnected.  However, just as a complex ecosystem is not necessarily
more stable than a simple one, and a complex cipher is not necessarily
more secure than a simple one, greater complexity in cyberspace does not
necessarily imply that it is less vulnerable to to centralized control.

[more stuff deleted]

> What Cypherpunks should be pushing for, in my view, is this increased
> dimensionality. More places to stick things, more places to escape
> central control, and more degrees of freedom (which has a nice dual
> meaning I once used as the working title for a novel I was working
> on).

But if you wanted to exert greater control over others, you would also
be pushing for increased dimensionality, because that shrinks the world
and moves everyone closer to you.  If you look at history, increased
connectivity has always been necessary for increased central control.
What I am saying is that increased connectivity alone does not
necessarily favor decentralization.  What makes the difference is the
details -- the nature of the connectivity.

> Is Cyberspace already rich enough (= high enough dimensionality) so
> that central control cannot be reestablished (to the extent it ever
> existed)?
>
> Many of this think that it probably already is past this point, that
> the "point of no return" has been reached. After all, the Soviets
> couldn't stop samizdats, the Chinese couldn't stop fax machines, and
> the Americans can't stop drug use, so what hope is there in
> controlling modems, crypto, cellular phones, satellites, Web links,
> stegonography, terabytes of data flowing unobstructed across borders,
> and so on. Just to "stop the Net" would disrupt the entire financial
> system, which not even Clinton or the next (Republican) President
> would be tempted to do....they might as well launch a nuclear war as
> try to shut down this "anarchic" ( = high dimensionality) system.

I'm not quite so optimistic.  One way to control a distributed system
such as the Internet would be to use a distributed method.  I.e., use
something like the Internet Worm, but a thousand times subtler and more
powerful.  There is no need for them to "stop the Net", just to subvert
a substantial part of it.

Wei Dai

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBLz/I0Tl0sXKgdnV5AQGEewP7BGVcIdtKv5UIh8z3ydSoMdOdvLyBxww3
N3f4NKaXTwS6PPfdmRafcN7i3mKEDIlB6CKBBEL5qV2GkDpmTi9rehD2q5hZFzEX
vdHYg8k/YRo8ZNnLdaelZO7EPFpFwX3XCeyd2Ap6efzrr7djX98ckJWb5ZMnK/Xp
BOLeEwxTF6Y=
=hcI1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

E-mail: Wei Dai <weidai@eskimo.com>   URL: "http://www.eskimo.com/~weidai"
=================== Exponential Increase of Complexity ===================
--> singularity --> atoms --> macromolecules --> biological evolution
--> central nervous systems --> symbolic communication --> homo sapiens
--> digital computers --> internetworking --> close-coupled automation
--> broadband brain-to-net connections --> artificial intelligence
--> distributed consciousness --> group minds --> ? ? ?

Wei Dai wrote:

> I agree that cyberspace is certainly becoming more complex and
> interconnected.  However, just as a complex ecosystem is not necessarily
> more stable than a simple one, and a complex cipher is not necessarily
> more secure than a simple one, greater complexity in cyberspace does not
> necessarily imply that it is less vulnerable to to centralized control.

No, it doesn't ncecessarily imply less vulnerability, but the two are
empirically correlated. Monocultures are usually easier to control
than in systems where the citizen-units have rich connections and
diverse options.

> But if you wanted to exert greater control over others, you would also
> be pushing for increased dimensionality, because that shrinks the world
> and moves everyone closer to you.  If you look at history, increased

It's always dangerous reasoning from imprecise analogies, and all the
more dangerous reasoning about the mental images others have of such
analogies. Thus, I won't dispute Wei Dai's image of "moving closer" to
the government except to say that as the space shrinks, _many people_
move closer...and this means transactions not visible to the
government _also_ become more common.

In other words, one may be only "2 Internet handshakes from Al Gore,"
but this doesn't give Al Gore control over Joe User's encrypted
transactions with Ivan Hackerovich. 

> connectivity has always been necessary for increased central control.
> What I am saying is that increased connectivity alone does not
> necessarily favor decentralization.  What makes the difference is the
> details -- the nature of the connectivity.

Yes, of course. The nature is critical, and I would not claim
otherwise. (This is another reason long posts are often losers in the
Ratings Game: the longer the post the more nits can be picked. And so
threads often devolve into word games. And if I try to fix things by
writing even _more_, it just gets worse! :-} )

> I'm not quite so optimistic.  One way to control a distributed system
> such as the Internet would be to use a distributed method.  I.e., use
> something like the Internet Worm, but a thousand times subtler and more
> powerful.  There is no need for them to "stop the Net", just to subvert
> a substantial part of it.

In fact, I almost mentioned the Morris Worm, but held back. For one
thing, in a crypto-dominated, reputation-centered era, such rogue
programs are probably less likely. Safe computing, etc.

I'm less fearful that the Net will be attacked in this way than that
liability laws will be used to try to scare people into compliance. 

But these are other topics, which I'll treat separately.

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
                       | 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/tc/tcmay