Re: Why is cryptoanarchy irreversible?

[ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)]

At 5:12 PM 11/7/1996, jim bell wrote:
>At 12:22 PM 11/7/96 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
>>It appears to be widely believed that cryptoanarchy is irreversible.
>>Everybody believes that the race to deploy or forbid strong cryptography
>>will define the outcome for a long time.

>> I can't think of a reason why this should be so.

>> If the wide use of strong cryptography results in widely unpopular
>> activities such as sarin attacks and political assassinations, it
>> would not be all that hard to forbid it, even after deployment.

> Simple analogy:  Suppose you put two people into a room with a deck of
> playing cards and a table, instructing "Person A" to build a house-of-cards,
> and telling "Person B" to stop him from achieving his goal.  Who do you
> think will win?  Obviously, the latter will win:  It's vastly easier to
> knock such a structure down than to build it in the first place,  and all
> "Person B" has to do is occasionally take a whack at the structure.

> 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.

My whole point is based on the proposition that the doomsayers are right.
I believe D. Denning has suggested that cryptoanarchy will result in
the breakdown of our society.  The implication is that we must stop
this from happening.  What I am saying is that we can wait and see
before going into a panic.  If it turns out to be bad - and I mean
Assassination Politics, by the way - it is reasonable to assume that
broad popular support for the suppression of strong cryptography will
result.  Even most cypherpunks would support and participate in such
policies if it appeared to be necessary.  Broad popular support means
that it will be possible to roll back cryptoanarchy.  That means
we don't need to do anything hasty now.  The people who want to do
some hasty should be called upon to justify their beliefs.  To date
I don't believe they have done so.

It might be a good idea to reread the first sentence of the last
paragraph.  I am not repeat not endorsing the Four Horsemen scenario.

> First, I contend that the unpopularity of political assassinations is based
> far less on their presumed undesirability, and much more so on the fact that
> the average citizen (currently) has no input on who is being killed.  He
> might well suppose that the killings are trying to deny him the little power
> and influence he has in the political system. ("They shot [fill in the
> blank}!  I voted for him!")  But what if assassination was made far more
> accessible to the common man?  Suppose, say, the approval of one million
> citizens was the only thing necessary to have an assassination legally
> accomplished?   Or, more likely in practice, the vote of a million citizens
> was interpreted as a kind of terminal veto over that particular politician
> or government employee, who would have to resign or face the (lethal)
> consquences!  In that case, assassinations wouldn't be seen as bad, they'd
> be the natural consequence of a politician who overstays his welcome and
> ignores numerous warnings.

It is my opinion that your bloodthirsty dreams have done a great deal to
discredit cryptoanarchy.

Peter Hendrickson
ph@netcom.com