Re: Crypto Anarchy, the Government, and the National Information Infrastructure

[owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)]

  > From: tcmay@netcom.netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
  > In this essay, quickly written, I'll address some points raised about
 > the government and its "willingness" to let strong crypto and crypto
 > anarchy develop, and how the Data Superhighway will require all data
 > packets to have "license plates" on them (my biggest speculative
 > leap).

By definition, government is the enemy of any anarchic movement.

 
 > We're in an arms race, us versus them, and I think the government as
 > we know it will ultimately lose.

WE have met the enemy and they are us.
What I hear you saying is that crypto-anarchists will win, and thus
replace the governmement as we know it. ( or perhaps transform the govenrment
as we know it)

  
 > Mike McNally writes:
 > 
 > > Given the material in the WiReD 1.6 article, how likely is it that a
 > > true anonymous digital cash system would be allowed?  I know, I know;
 > > there's "no way to prevent it"; however, I think that concept is based
 > > on the premise that the Government proceeds rationally.
 > 
 > You mean, how likely is that the government will allow a system that
 > makes taxation almost impossible, that enables black markets, that
 > facillitates the transfer of illegal information, and that basically
 > nukes the present arrangement?
 > 
 > I don't think they'll "allow" it. But this doesn't mean it won't happen.


when crypto is outlawed, only outlaws will have crypto.

  > The "crypto crackdown" Mike is alluding to is one that has be
 > predicted for a long time. We are indeed in an "arms race": both sides
 > are racing to cut the other off. 

"Get Up Get up, Lord Donald Cried
  Get up and fight for your life.

 Oh , I won't get up, I won't get up.
  I can't get up and fight.
 For you have two long beaten swords, 
  And I but a pocket knife."
                               from Matty Groves (trad)

 > Strong crytography means government can no longer do its thing, at
 > least not has it's accustomed to. Strong crypto means untraceable
 > payments, secure phone lines, information markets in what are now
 > military and corporate secrets, liquid markets in illegal services,
 > and of course a nearly total collapse in taxation abilities.

Strong crypto in the hands of the individual leads to this scenario.
Thats why strong crypto will be reserved for the privileged, and kept
from those not connected to the power-system.

 > On taxation, it is certainly clear that many folks will still be
 > "visible" and will be taxed as heavily as other--I don't want to imply
 > that the guy who works for Lockheed or behind the counter at Safeway
 > is somehow going to be liberated from paying taxes by the onset of
 > crypto anarchy.
 > 
 > No, the effect will be more of an erosion of _support_ for taxation,
 > as word spreads that many consultants, writers, information sellers,
 > and the like are sheltering much of their income via use of networks
 > and strong crypto.  

The privileged members of the unseen-unknown oligarchy have long
enjoyed the privilege of sheltering their wealth. 
I suppose it is the natural progression of things that the individual
slowly gains ground once held by the powerfull and privileged,
but usualy not unless giving that ground makes the privileged more powerful
than before. The margin rarely diminishes, it is an ever widening gulf IMNSHO.

 
 > This "crypto phase change" (a term I prefer to the term "Singularity,"
 > so beloved by the nanotechnology folks) is what I see coming. Whether
 > the government can crack down first is the fly in the ointment.


Is there a question regarding whether they *can*?
Of course they *can*, they have more weapons, and  a history of using them.
Don't you really want to ask other things like what happens when/if they do?



 > Note that the way strong crypto works means a successful crackdown
 > could only come as the result of strong police state policies. That
 > is, outlawing of unapproved encryption, on demand inspection of all
 > data packets, strict regulation of across-the-border
 > telecommunications, an end to the Internet as we know it today, and
 > strict penalties merely for "conspiring" to use strong crypto. Eric
 > Hughes' "Use a random number, go to jail" line is not so far from the
 > truth.

whats their option, to just hand over the keys, go have a beer at the 
local pub, and contemplate getting honest jobs instead of fighting
to keep you from destroying  their current way of life?

"Darn those hackers, they've got checkmate in three moves.
Oh well, I wonder if Burger Sri is hiring?"

 > I oppose the government's plan for a "data superhighway" for two main
 > reasons. First, there's no need and the free market is already giving
 > us a multiplicity of lines, channels, satellites, etc. Anarchic
 > development can produce a more robust system, actually. 

You are preaching to the choir.
bettre to just keep plugging at implementing those *channels* and 
methods of accessing them.

  > Imagine this: to get on the Data Superhighway, which will likely be
 > the only major lines if the government succeeds in making it the
 > mandatory standard, every data packet must have a "license plate."
 > Don't laugh! The idea of a license plate on data packets is coming. It
 > would provide the kind of traceability that control freaks like
 > Detweiler claim to want (I say "claim" because our pal LD is the
 > largest user of pseudonyms we have.) It would provide for taxation of
 > packets, much like road fees and truck charges, and it would generally
 > make the Net an environment hostile to crypto anarchy.
 
Our nation is criss crossed with super-highways, but there are plenty
of folks who prefer to stay on the back roads.

Its awfully hard to build competing highways where folks can drive
their un-registered vehicles, because the real-estate involved is
finite.

May I point out that cyberspace has un-real estate, and that there is 
all you want.

 > The forces of NIST/NSA and the National Information Infrastructure are
 > moving in this direction.
 > 
 > I'm moving in another direction, toward the overthrow of the present system.
 > 

Remind me when I get too close to you, I don't want to get caught in the 
crossfire.


 > Over the past several years I've thought about these issues at length.
 > I don't think they can crack down. Can they stop "dial-a-prayer"
 > computer confessionals? (priest-confessor privilege, recognized at a
 > deep level) Can they stop attorney-client computer communications? (To
 > wiretap these would break open the entire legal system.)

Whats that old saying about Death and taxes.
Given the choice between these two necesary evils , 
which one would you choose.

*Give me liberty or give me death* is the cry of the revolutionary
who is already marked as an enemy of the state.

Go shout it in a crowd and march on the halls of government.
see how many line up behind you to join in the fun.

 > Can they place police monitors in every role-playing game or
 > deep-immersion VR system? (Make no mistake about it, systems like
 > "Habitat" and LambdaMOO, and many more are coming or already exist,
 > will be full-fledged agoric marketplaces, with goods and services
 > being traded. Read "Snow Crash" or "True Names" to remind yourself of
 > this (I'm not endorsing the specific views of Stephenson or Vinge, who
 > got some things "wrong"--no big deal, as their general vision was what
 > was so important.)
 > 
 > Can they tell people they can't compress their files? (compressed
 > files look outwardly like encrypted files) Can they ban the use of
 > steganography--if they can find it being used at all?
 > 
 > No, too many bits are flowing already. Too many degrees of freedom. A
 > Soviet-style crackdown is not in the cards.

I think it is unwise to use linear thinking to try and deduce what 
the ultimate outcome of this complex equation may look like.

When you evoke a Demon into the triangle, you can utter the command
that the unholy creature appear in a comely form, but nothing guarantees
that it will be so.

 > But we stil have to fight.

Yup..
And I'm right behind you brother..
uh.. no need to look around and check.. I'm right here at your shoulder..
We'll get those bastards.. thats right - charge in there and give 'em hell.

say.. where's the bathroom.

 > Things like the Clipper still need to be fought, by ridicule ("Big
 > Brother Inside" stickers), by lawsuits (not my specialty), by
 > denouncement (as when industry groups denounce it), and especially by
 > developing and promoting alternatives. The market is truly ripe for a
 > Soundblaster-type voice encryption system---when will one of you
 > budding entrepreneurs get one out?

The problem with secrets is  that if you share them with too many people
they aren't secrets anymore.

 > Having read the three main "position papers" on NII (the White House
 > paper, the CPSR analysis, and the EFF "Open Platform" piece), I'm as
 > convinced as ever that the Data Highway is largely about regaining
 > control of the currently anarchic network system. It just isn't about
 > giving ghetto residents access to Crays, nor is it about the
 > government being benificent in expanding our cable choices from 50
 > channels of shit to 5000 channels.

"We're from the governmemt and we're here to help you"
is listed just above
"the check is in the mail", and
" I won't come in your mouth"

 > No, it is about taxing the commerce that is moving increasingly into
 > cyberspace. It is about continuing to regulate and control. It is
 > about the survival of Big Brother.
 > The arms race is on.


WE are primates, we live in primate societys.
survival of primate-alpha hierarchy is the first order of 
business.
Fight it and you will die or be driven out.

LUX ./. owen