"Nightmare on Crypto Street, Part 1"

["Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>]

At 11:29 AM -0500 11/8/96, Jeremiah A Blatz wrote:

>Peter's point: If everyone in the US wants a ban on strong crypto,
>excepth the people on this list and the million-odd terrorists who are
>using strong crypto to murder, rape, pillage, etc., then strong crypto
>will be banned.

Yes, I think this captures the essence of Peter's straw man argument. While
it's triggered a welcome change of discussion, from Vulis and such to a
more interesting discussion of crypto anarchy and possible restrictions on
crypto, and many of us have commented, I think the premises are weak.

I also summarize Peter's set up much as you did:

"Suppose the Four Horsemen ride in. Suppose planes are being shot down,
buildings in every city are being blown up, people are being killed left
and right by crypto-hired-killers, Sarin gas is wafting through the
subways, and cats are afraid to go out at night. People will get out their
pitchforks and break in the doors of their neighbors in search of the
demonic crypto tools of Satan. (There's even a cracking tool _named_ Satan,
so this proves the programmers need to be purified by holy fire!) The Bill
of Rights will be suspennded, cops will raid homes, the military will be on
the street corners, the Internet will be shut down, the government will be
replaced by a Military-Religious Complex, and thought criminals will be
rounded up and shot. The people will say, "Thank you" and will live happily
ever after."

And whenever any of us raised issues of Constitutionality of the measures
Peter was predicting, such as random searches, conviction based on
possession of an illegal tool, forced escrow, etc., it seemed that Peter's
response was usually some variant of:

"Won't matter. The people will demand action."

Well, given a frightening enough scenario, a pogrom or purge or witch hunt
is certainly possible, and in some countries such things have happened. The
Cultural Revolution, the Islamic Revolution(s), and the extermination of a
million Hutus (or Tutsis) by rival Tutsis (or Hutus) being only the most
recent examples.

But I think this "nightmare scenario" is implausible. Even a milder form,
such as a serious Sarin gas attack which kills, say, 1,000, and in which it
is discovered that the plotters used PGP to arrange things, is unlikely to
provoke a suspension of the Constitution and random searches. To be sure,
there would likely be _some_ violations of rights, some random searches,
some overreaching by authorities, etc. But as folks were rounded up, a la
Richard Jewell, and then found to have no connection to the Sarin
terrorists, despite having PGP on their machines!, then the hysteria will
fade.

And the civil rights lawyers will be out in full force, pointing out that
random searches are explicity and clearly prohibited by the Fourth
Amendment, and that the First Amendment is equally explicit and clear that
forms of speech may not be dictated. When the first 1000 random searches of
Internet users turn up only some neutral messages, albeit encrypted with
PGP in transmission, and maybe a few R-rated JPEGs of Pamela Anderson, and
the courts and DAs are faced with what charges to file and how to process
these "perps," the enthusiasm for random searches will fade further.

And the points many of us have been making about digital commerce, the
central role of the Net in so many things, and the international
connections, mean that a pogrom launched against the Net just isn't going
to fly. Too many corporate interests are at stake.

(Even the Taliban in Kabul are finding that their purge of women from the
working ranks is disastrous, as there just aren't enough survivng men to
staff the hospitals, schools, and administrative functions....)

The "Nightmare on Crypto Street, Part 1" scenario might make for an
interesting crypto-apocalyptic screenplay, though. I vote for John Travolta
playing me and Professor Irwin Corey playing Dr. Vulis. Got to find some
good female roles, though. Not easy with this topic.

--Tim May




"The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM
that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology."
[NYT, 1996-10-02]
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."