Re: Why is cryptoanarchy irreversible?

[ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)]

At 11:39 AM 11/8/1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
>At 9:50 AM -0800 11/8/96, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
>>At 11:29 AM 11/8/1996, Jeremiah A Blatz wrote:
>>> Furthermore, terrorrim and etc do not depend upon secure
>>> communications to work. People tend to be able to talk face-to-face in
>>> isolated environs, this is just as effective as a good public-key
>>> cryptosystem. Crypto won't suddenly protect the types of people who
>>> are professional killers/terrorists from scrutiny. It meerly would
>>> allow them to communicate securely over distances of more than 10
>>> feet. This, IMO, is not much of a win for them.

>> Face-to-face communications in isolated environs does not a cryptoanarchy
>> make.

> Yes, but you're the one talking about bombings, mass killings, Sarin gas
> attacks, and other such examples of "terrorism." You cite the presence of
> these things as why the Constitution will effectively be suspended and why
> neighbors will cheerfully conduct vigilante raids on their suspected
> terrorists.

> Crypto anarchy is not the same thing as terrorism. Calling terrorism
> "crypto anarchy" does not make it so.

I could not agree with you more.

What I am working with is the hypothetical Four Horsemen scenario which
you have described above.  I am not endorsing that scenario.

If that were the outcome of cryptoanarchy, and some people think it will be,
would it be a manageable problem or would the technology just sort of get
away?  I believe it would be easily managed if there were broad public
support.  Jeremiah correctly pointed out that you don't need strong
cryptography to commit terrorist acts.  That just puts us where we
are today - not in a cryptoanarchy.

I don't think that strong cryptography helps terrorists much.  Let's
face it, biowarfare and sarin gas don't have anything to do with
cryptography, no matter how much the GAKers will try to show that
they do.  But, if I am wrong and for some reason the availability of
strong cryptography leads to these scenarios - as the GAKers say -
then there would be broad public support for the suppression of
strong cryptography.  This effort would be successful.  It would
not dramatically erode the structure of the Constitution or our
legal system in the short term.

The effect of strong cryptography and the Net is that it makes it
possible for people with common interests to find each other more
easily and to develop long distance relationships.  That's fine
when we are talking about scientists, mathematicians, or cypherpunks.
But, it also brings together people with less savory interests.
It's undesirable for serial killers to find each other and trade
notes on how to evade capture.  (I think this usually happens now
through the prison system.)

Strong cryptography makes it harder for governments to manage ideas
and relationships between people.  There are many implications of
this and I think they are almost entirely good.

The Constitution may not survive GAK in the long run.  If the world
were to stay in 1996 and we outlawed strong cryptography this would
not necessarily be the case.  But the world won't stay still.

Computer assisted population management technologies have been getting
more effective and cheaper all the time.  In the past it was hard to
give everybody unforgeable internal passports and ear tags.  In a GAKed
future that is unlikely to be the case.  Segments of the USG probably
have the doctrine worked out.

We've heard a lot about "the responsible use of cryptography" from
the GAKers.  In fact, it is highly irresponsible to propose GAK
at this time when there is no evidence whatsoever that it is needed.

These people may have moved beyond any concern with ideas such as
"responsibility."  Right now there is a tremendous opportunity to
the elites of the world to enslave everybody else.  Once you know
everywhere somebody goes, everything they read, and everybody they
talk about, you can manage their behavior quite effectively.  Only
a small number of people would be needed to tweak the "justice"
computers to punish indiscretions, such as meeting a cypherpunk
on the street.

Many people would be happy to enslave their fellow citizens if
it meant tremendous wealth, power, and prestige for themselves
and their children, possibly for a long time.

Peter Hendrickson
ph@netcom.com