Re: Why is cryptoanarchy irreversible?

[ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)]

At 11:46 PM 11/7/1996, Mark M. wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
>> If mandatory GAK were imposed, reviewing messages is easy, even with
>> inter-agency fighting.  Or, encryption in general could just be
>> forbidden if GAK created too much hassle.
>
> How would this be possible?  The latest GAK proposal is for companies to store
> keys instead of the government.  There is the potential for colaboration
> between a TLA and an "escrow" company.  It is also possible for a TLA to
> illegally obtain the keys from the company's database.  However, it would
> still be impossible to review every message.  Even if the government had full
> access to all encryption keys, it would still be technically infeasible to
> review every message.

The latest GAK proposal is not under discussion.  What is under discussion
is the policy options that are possible when there is strong public
support to suppress strong cryptography.  The Four Horsemen scenario
would likely generate such mass support, even among cypherpunks.

>> In practice I suspect that good stego is hard.  You don't have to be
>> right every time when you look for it, just some of the time.  When
>> you see packets that seem kind of funny to you, the judge issues you
>> a warrant and you search the suspect's house and computer very carefully.
>> If stego is in use, the software that generated it can be found.  Then
>> you hand out a life sentence.

> Good stego is possible.  Stegoing data in jpegs is very secure and probably
> infeasible to detect.

I am not convinced, but I am not expert in this area.

> However, I find the life sentence idea pretty unrealistic.  You are assuming
> that there will be wide support for tough restrictions on crypto.  This is
> not currently the case and I doubt it would ever get to this point.

Yes, I am assuming that the Four Horsemen scenario would stimulate strong
public support for extraordinarily tough restrictions on crypto.

Yes, I doubt it would ever get to this point because cryptoanarchy will
be far less dramatic than many people believe.  It may cause dramatic
changes, but they will be subtle and gradual, like the Net's influence.

For instance, I don't think Ruby Ridge would ever have been an issue
raised in Congress if it hadn't been for the Internet.  This is a subtle
and positive change, but most people hardly noticed the effect of the Net.

The way in which the agenda is set has moved out of New York and Washington.
Strong cryptography promotes this because it enables people to discuss
issues which are important to them without fear of retribution.

> Not very many people are currently supporting any life sentence for anyone
> who is in possession of explosives, despite the increase in terrorist
> activity.  Gun-control advocates aren't supporting laws that will give a life
> sentence to anyone who owns a gun.  Given that many people who believe in
> gun-control and tagants in explosives are against GAK, why do you think there
> will be such a revolt against strong crypto?

I don't think that there will be a strong revolt against crypto.  From the
point of view of the GAKers that's a problem.  That is why they have to
act before the public discovers it's an asset, not a liability.

But, if the GAKers are right about the Four Horsemen scenario (which
I doubt they believe themselves) there would be great public support
for drastic measures and these measures could be quite effective.

Peter Hendrickson
ph@netcom.com