[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: THE LAST WORD... (maybe)
From: Sandy Sandfort
Now everybody can either waste their time thinking up really
neat-o keen-o ways to whack innocent spouses, business enemies
and rich uncles, or you can support strong crypto and privacy by
thinking up ways to mitigate the potentially negative
side-effects of crypto-anarchy.
Isn't it just another means to an end, like all others. Should only a
few be allowed to use a system, method, or invention; should there be
barriers against tools because someone might misuse them or misapply
them, etc. (same arguments)
My question, in noting the possibilities discussed, was to consider
what the means of defense would be against such an event transpiring.
Not a responsibility for some law-enforcement agency to take up, but
for potential victims. Not that there is anything specific which
cypherpunks should think up to counter the possibility that crypto will
be used for murder-for-hire, but just that it is always necessary for
independent anarchist types to arrange for their own solutions to the
problems of technological advancement (or any other kind).
"Technology" (actually, technologists) make new things possible or
easier, and those who exist in the milieu within that culture must find
a way to deal with the consequences of the new introduction into their
midst. That is the ideal, right - you ascend to new heights of
knowledge, ability, and efficacy, rather than keeping everyone on a
lower level of functioning because someone might get out of hand and
create a problem for others.
I wouldn't think, "oh, it can't be done", simply because I myself
can't imagine it. I would think, "so - what could I do about that",
seeing as how it could be possible to someone and as how it isn't
realistic to expect to be able to stop *every* one from reasoning along
And I can think of things which an individual could do to deal with
such contingencies, but could there be a crypto solution?