Re: Freedom and security

Jim Ray wrote

> Freedom is already diminishing at an alarming pace.
>That is why cypherpunks spread crypto, and why Libertarians like
>me rant. Freedom does not increase through more laws.

Nor does freedom increase through less laws or no laws.  Freedom increases
as respect and care for one another increases.  Meanwhile, since we do not
live in utopia, all societies at a certain level of economic development
and of a certain size of population require law and law enforcement to
protect citizens from predators.

The Internet is beyond the stage of small communities exercising informal
social controls (peer pressure).  It's now a major industrial city and will
develop law, law enforcement and government, whether anyone likes it or
not, not least because the Community will always respond to crime by trying
to protect itself.  And the crime is already here.  The idea that the
Internet is not controlled is IMHO one of the biggest myths around.  It's
like a large group of people are still living in some far-off utopian rural
paradise.  Does anyone really doubt the extent of State control and power
across the Net?  My point is that this is inevitable.  The Internet is a
mirror of the rest of the world, not a new form of society, and I fail to
understand why anyone should be surprised that that is the case.

 >.... laws only breed more laws, which always lead to
>less freedom.

I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that laws breed more laws
nor that laws lead to less freedom.  I believe bad laws compromise freedom
(eg CDA) while good laws protect freedom.

>>I don't believe that security is the enemy of
>>freedom.  I believe that freedom needs security in order to exist at all.
>
>Good. Join us in spreading cryptography around, and security will
>bloom (along with freedom).

Cryptography enhances and protects privacy, which does not inevitably lead
to greater security.  Security for the sender, yes, in that no one else can
read the message, but security for the Community?  Doesnt that depend what
the message said?  The technology itself is neutral.  Child pornographers
encrypt their hard drives so that law enforcement cannot gather crime
evidence - that is certainly a state of greater security for the
pornographer, but it does not improve our Community, and as child
pornography increases, the law is by definition broken more and more, and
so the Community becomes less free than before.  And that's not the tyranny
of government but the tryanny of criminals.

I do in fact support cryptography for personal security, not least because
I can ensure that my messages are authenticated.  CyberAngels PGP public
key will be up on our new website opening very soon.  I've had enough of
people forging my email.


*********************************************************
Colin Gabriel Hatcher - CyberAngels Director
angels@wavenet.com

"Two people may disagree, but
that does not mean that one of them is evil"

*********************************************************

On Tue, 30 Apr 1996 angels@wavenet.com wrote:

> The Internet is beyond the stage of small communities exercising informal
> social controls (peer pressure).

Disagree strongly. The net is a LARGE number of SMALL communities. This 
is why spammers are so offensive: they trespass and violate boundries. 
This is why killfiles were invented. You ask about people who don't know 
about killfiles.  Teach them. This requires no formal organization.

> paradise.  Does anyone really doubt the extent of State control and power
> across the Net?

Yes.  If there was state control of the Internet, there probably wouldn't 
be any anonymous remailers. And the Cyberangels would go away.

> My point is that this is inevitable.

Very few things are inevitable; that's a very strong word. The Cypherpunk 
Agenda is to provide exactly those tools which make this "inevitable" 
thing absolutely impossible.

> The Internet is a
> mirror of the rest of the world, not a new form of society, and I fail to
> understand why anyone should be surprised that that is the case.

Disagree modestly.

> I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that laws breed more laws
> nor that laws lead to less freedom.  I believe bad laws compromise freedom
> (eg CDA) while good laws protect freedom.

Have you taken a good hard _honest_ look at the War on Drugs? I also 
believe that bad laws compromise freedom and good laws protect freedom. 
One of the problems is that good laws often breed bad laws to patch 
things up.

> Cryptography enhances and protects privacy, which does not inevitably lead
> to greater security.  Security for the sender, yes, in that no one else can
> read the message, but security for the Community?  Doesnt that depend what
> the message said?

No. True security for the community rests in a shared social standard 
which discourages actions which are harmful to the community or 
individuals. Security which requires a class of Guardians to protect 
everyone else is not security. It's safety, but it's temporary safety.

Jon Lasser
----------
Jon Lasser (410)494-3072                         - Obscenity  is a crutch  for
jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu                            inarticulate motherfuckers.
http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/
Finger for PGP key (1024/EC001E4D)               - Fuck the CDA.

On Wed, 1 May 1996, Moltar Ramone wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Apr 1996 angels@wavenet.com wrote:
> 
> > The Internet is beyond the stage of small communities exercising informal
> > social controls (peer pressure).
> 
I disagree. It is your community, and your involvement can still make a 
difference. When all you do is turn away, or complain to the authorities, 
rather than becomming involved, the "crime rate" goes up, and the 
authorities respond by raising taxes, passing laws, and putting more 
police on the streets.

Most spammers just don't know any better. One of the sites I manage 
started choking on spam that was a "mailing list" of a few hundred email 
addresses in the "cc:" field. A polite email message to the offender, and 
another to their ISP, was all that was needed to stop the problem. Took 
much less time than reading this thread.  :)

> Disagree strongly. The net is a LARGE number of SMALL communities. This 
> is why spammers are so offensive: they trespass and violate boundries. 
> This is why killfiles were invented. You ask about people who don't know 
> about killfiles.  Teach them. This requires no formal organization.
> 
> > paradise.  Does anyone really doubt the extent of State control and power
> > across the Net?
> 
> Yes.  If there was state control of the Internet, there probably wouldn't 
> be any anonymous remailers. And the Cyberangels would go away.
> 

I doubt this. One can still get a "blind" post office box rather easily. 
Why would the 'net be any different?

> > My point is that this is inevitable.
> 
> Very few things are inevitable; that's a very strong word. The Cypherpunk 
> Agenda is to provide exactly those tools which make this "inevitable" 
> thing absolutely impossible.
>
You're taking a stand on the minority side of a viewpoint; society can, 
and might, fight back by making your tools themselves illegal, rather 
than the uses you put them to. At least in the U.S., you can fall back on 
the Bill of Rights, but the CDA is a prime example of the erosian of even 
our most fundamental protection.
 
> > The Internet is a
> > mirror of the rest of the world, not a new form of society, and I fail to
> > understand why anyone should be surprised that that is the case.
> 
> Disagree modestly.
> 
> > I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that laws breed more laws
> > nor that laws lead to less freedom.  I believe bad laws compromise freedom
> > (eg CDA) while good laws protect freedom.
> 
The problem is that we're running a bit short on the "good laws" side, at 
least here in the U.S. Election-year stupidity has again set in, and our 
(mostly uninformed) leaders are racing to anything involving regulation 
of the 'net, as it's a sure way to get into the public eye. Take the 
"minor bit" as an example of a hasty and ill-thought-out p.r. stunt ...

> Have you taken a good hard _honest_ look at the War on Drugs? I also 
> believe that bad laws compromise freedom and good laws protect freedom. 
> One of the problems is that good laws often breed bad laws to patch 
> things up.
> 
> > Cryptography enhances and protects privacy, which does not inevitably lead
> > to greater security.  Security for the sender, yes, in that no one else can
> > read the message, but security for the Community?  Doesnt that depend what
> > the message said?
> 
If I send snail, there are "rules" governing who can open the envelope. 
If I'm suspected of criminal activity, the community has recourse.

The 'net is different. The envelope is always open. I suppose this falls 
right into the trap of giving the govt. key escrow, which I'm against, 
but that's another story ...

> No. True security for the community rests in a shared social standard 
> which discourages actions which are harmful to the community or 
> individuals. Security which requires a class of Guardians to protect 
> everyone else is not security. It's safety, but it's temporary safety.
> Jon Lasser
> ----------
> Jon Lasser (410)494-3072                         - Obscenity  is a crutch  for
> jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu                            inarticulate motherfuckers.
> http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/
> Finger for PGP key (1024/EC001E4D)               - Fuck the CDA.
> 
>

Rabid Wombat wrote:

> If I send snail, there are "rules" governing who can open the envelope.
> If I'm suspected of criminal activity, the community has recourse.

If you don't encrypt or otherwise secure sensitive surface mail the same 
way you would e-mail, you deserve what you get.  The community, of course,
is in the same state with secure snail-mail case as it is with PGP-encrypted
e-mail.

Which reminds me of something I've been meaning to ask about.  I read
(probably in WiReD) about a bar-code-like (well, not *much* like, but
ink-on-paper similar) technique for rendering data onto paper with
enhanced properties of storage efficiency, resistance to degradation
through photocopying, and ease of recovery via ordinary scanning.  The
stuff looks like bunches of little lines at different angles, I think.
Anyway, what I'm curious about is whether encode/decode (i.e., print
and scan) software is available.

______c_____________________________________________________________________
Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX    * pain is inevitable  
       m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com          *
      <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101>         * suffering is optional

On Thu, 2 May 1996, Mike McNally wrote:

> Rabid Wombat wrote:
> 
> > If I send snail, there are "rules" governing who can open the envelope.
> > If I'm suspected of criminal activity, the community has recourse.
> 
> If you don't encrypt or otherwise secure sensitive surface mail the same 
> way you would e-mail, you deserve what you get.  The community, of course,
> is in the same state with secure snail-mail case as it is with PGP-encrypted
> e-mail.
> 
Yes, I CAN encrypt. The point being discussed is whether society should 
allow me to do so, and if I have the RIGHT to do so. Classic freedom of 
individual vs. rights of society. Plato, Aristotle, Montesquieu, etc. etc.
Can't swing a dead marsupial without hittin' a philosopher on 'punks 
these days.

> Which reminds me of something I've been meaning to ask about.  I read
> (probably in WiReD) about a bar-code-like (well, not *much* like, but
> ink-on-paper similar) technique for rendering data onto paper with
> enhanced properties of storage efficiency, resistance to degradation
> through photocopying, and ease of recovery via ordinary scanning.  The
> stuff looks like bunches of little lines at different angles, I think.
> Anyway, what I'm curious about is whether encode/decode (i.e., print
> and scan) software is available.
> 
Ah, the modern day version of the Rosetta Stone, unearthed in 
post-nuclear holocaust Peoria ...

> ______c_____________________________________________________________________
> Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX    * pain is inevitable  
>        m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com          *
>       <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101>         * suffering is optional
>

On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher wrote:

> Nor does freedom increase through less laws or no laws.  Freedom increases
> as respect and care for one another increases.

Respect maybe, but care?  Please.

> Meanwhile, since we do not
> live in utopia, all societies at a certain level of economic development
> and of a certain size of population require law and law enforcement to
> protect citizens from predators.

I disagree.  Law enforcement is only required to the extent the individual
is unable to protect him or herself from "predators."

Assuming that a certain level of economic development makes this
impossible or difficult is, in my view, a long jump.

> The Internet is beyond the stage of small communities exercising informal
> social controls (peer pressure).  It's now a major industrial city and will
> develop law, law enforcement and government, whether anyone likes it or
> not, not least because the Community will always respond to crime by trying
> to protect itself.

What you fail to recognize is that the individual is much more empowered
on the internet than in other communities.  Looking at the internet as a
community is a misnomer.  It is a community only to the extent people
engage themselves in it.

You have to live somewhere on the planet.  You can't simply unplug from
the real world.  Participation in a community is mandatory in the real
world.  Not so with 'cyberspace.'

> And the crime is already here.  The idea that the
> Internet is not controlled is IMHO one of the biggest myths around.  It's
> like a large group of people are still living in some far-off utopian rural
> paradise.  Does anyone really doubt the extent of State control and power
> across the Net?

Yes.

Louis Freeh for one.  Bill Clinton as another.  Senator Exon as a third.
Shall I go on?

> My point is that this is inevitable.

My point is that I believe you are incorrect.

> The Internet is a
> mirror of the rest of the world, not a new form of society, and I fail to
> understand why anyone should be surprised that that is the case.

Mostly because many of us don't believe it's true.  While I will agree
that one sees similarities between socializations on the internet and the
real world, making the leap to a "mirror image" is pushing it.

>  >.... laws only breed more laws, which always lead to
> >less freedom.
> 
> I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that laws breed more laws
> nor that laws lead to less freedom.  I believe bad laws compromise freedom
> (eg CDA) while good laws protect freedom.

Show me a good law that doesn't reduce freedom.  Give me one example
please.

> >>I don't believe that security is the enemy of
> >>freedom.  I believe that freedom needs security in order to exist at all.
> >
> >Good. Join us in spreading cryptography around, and security will
> >bloom (along with freedom).
> 
> Cryptography enhances and protects privacy, which does not inevitably lead
> to greater security.

Your failure to connect privacy with individual security does not commend
your argument to the reader.

> Security for the sender, yes, in that no one else can
> read the message, but security for the Community?  Doesnt that depend what
> the message said?

Since when has community security required censorship?  What you are
proposing are content based restrictions justified by the 'need' for
'community security' where the definition of 'community' is so vague as to
be meaningless and the meaning for 'security' is entirely undefined.

One might as well say:  We have to protect the hummahrmm from the hurmmms
in your message.  We're going to pass some laws to do it.

> The technology itself is neutral.  Child pornographers
> encrypt their hard drives so that law enforcement cannot gather crime
> evidence - that is certainly a state of greater security for the
> pornographer, but it does not improve our Community,

Well, that depends, again, on what your community is defined as, what you
mean by improve, the assumption that child pornography is detremental to
the community, the assumption that child pornography is a crime and the
assumption that law enforcement is really interested in reducing crime.

> and as child
> pornography increases, the law is by definition broken more and more,

Uh... so?

If I pass a law forbidding nudity at all, including in private, as
showering increases the law is by definition broken more and more and so
the community becomes less free than before.  Now, this is the fault of
the showerers, isn't it?

This is basically what you say here:

> and
> so the Community becomes less free than before.  And that's not the tyranny
> of government but the tryanny of criminals.

This is classic left-speak.  It's not the government that has taken away
rights by passing laws that take away rights, but it's the fault of the
criminals (who are ill,mal, or undefined).  Blame _them_ for your loss of
liberty.

Uh huh.

This is poor rationalization and after the fact justification.

> I do in fact support cryptography for personal security, not least because
> I can ensure that my messages are authenticated.  CyberAngels PGP public
> key will be up on our new website opening very soon.  I've had enough of
> people forging my email.

You disprove your own point.  You just struck a blow to 'criminal' mail
forgers without the help of law enforcement at all.  In fact it is despite
attempts to prevent you from using strong cryptography by legislators and
the executive that you can accomplish this.  Can you also see that your
'community' is improved by the presence of this technology which deters
criminal mail forgers?  And, imagine that, it was done without the
expenditure of tax dollars.

Or do I have to spell this out for you?

> *********************************************************
> Colin Gabriel Hatcher - CyberAngels Director
> angels@wavenet.com
> 
> "Two people may disagree, but
> that does not mean that one of them is evil"

It does, however, typically mean that at least one of them is wrong.

> *********************************************************

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com