Re: Why is cryptoanarchy irreversible?

At 06:25 PM 11/7/96 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
>At 5:12 PM 11/7/1996, jim bell wrote:
>> BTW, some of your confusion is probably based is the false assumptions in
>> your last sentence above.  "..wide use of strong cryptography results in
>> widely unpopular activities such as sarin attacks and political
>> assassinations."
>
>No, you're confused, but it's probably my fault.  We don't really know
>what cryptoanarchy will be like.  We all have ideas about it.  Some
>we share and some we don't.  But we won't really know until we see it
>happen.

Well, uh, with all due respect, but while it's obviously true that we won't 
know EXACTLY how it'll be, that doesn't mean that no portion of we imagine 
will come true.  This is particularly true on the big issues.   For example, 
you hypothesized that "wide use of strong cryptography resuts in widely 
unpopular activities such as sarin attacks and political activities.  I 
pointed out, almost certainly correctly, that these are wrong:

1.  To believe that use in cryptography will result in greater numbers of 
random attacks on innocent civilians.  As I pointed out, the exact opposite 
should be true:  A greater ability to target the guilty means less reason to 
kill the innocent.

2.  To believe that political assassination will be unpopular even if the 
ordinary citizen has an effective say in who's going to die.


In other words, based on my understanding these beliefs are diametrically 
opposed to the truth.  Not simply a difference in extent, we're talking a 
180-degree change.

Your response is a sheepish, "but we won't really know until we see it 
happen."   Harrumph!  

>My whole point is based on the proposition that the doomsayers are right.

Which doomsayers?  What version of "doom"?  

>I believe D. Denning has suggested that cryptoanarchy will result in
>the breakdown of our society.

I suppose that depends a lot on what a person means by the phrase, "our 
society."  Used as you (and maybe she, as well) this sounds like a 
code-word.  To a statist, "society" is basically the stratification system 
that has developed to let one group of people control another.  By that 
standard, cryptoanarchy WILL "result in the breakdown of our society."   But 
that's all for the good.



Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

jim bell wrote:
> At 06:25 PM 11/7/96 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
> >At 5:12 PM 11/7/1996, jim bell wrote:
> >> BTW, some of your confusion is probably based is the false assumptions in
> >> your last sentence above.  "..wide use of strong cryptography results in
> >> widely unpopular activities such as sarin attacks and political assassinations."

[snip]

> Well, uh, with all due respect, but while it's obviously true that we won't
> know EXACTLY how it'll be, that doesn't mean that no portion of we imagine
> will come true.  This is particularly true on the big issues.   For example,
> you hypothesized that "wide use of strong cryptography resuts in widely
> unpopular activities such as sarin attacks and political activities.  I
> pointed out, almost certainly correctly, that these are wrong:

[snip]

My first comment on the subject:  It's only irreversible if certain conditions hold.

First, if the masses become dependent on a large software program which has to be
updated occasionally by its corporate sponsors, somewhat like the voting software
which is controlled by those who benefit from said control (not the masses), then
those who "compile their own" would tend to stand out and be more noticeable.

Second, any truly secret messaging taking place represents a serious threat to the
military, and contrary to some naive popular opinion, those guys are not going to
lay down for this, unless it happens on an immense scale, i.e., the *majority* of
citizens are doing the "truly secret" messaging, which is not likely if paragraph
#1 above holds.