Re: Force is not physical

[tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)]

Hal Finney writes:

> One question I have been thinking about based on the recent discussions
> with Tim May, Eric Hughes, Jason Solinsky, and others, is whether it
> makes sense to say that nothing done in cyberspace should be considered
> to be punishable by force.  This leads to the position that double
> spending is OK if you can get away with it (but we set up the system so
> you can't get away with it).  It also suggests that contracts as such
> cannot really be binding (in the usual sense) since they are just words
> and people can repudiate them freely.  Nobody puts a gun to your head
> and forces you to believe someone else's promise to pay you for work
> you do and deliver.  If he wants to say, "tough luck, ha ha," then
> there's nothing much you can do about it other than try to be more
> careful next time (and let other people know who screwed you).

I don't strongly argue for the position: "anything is OK if you can
get away with it." In fact, I can think of many actions that, if
"performed in cyberspace" would warrant physical retaliation up to and
including deadly response. An example would be theft of "my" personal
secrets, my digitial money, etc.

The hard part, of course, is catching the person. And I see no point
in making a big deal about "outlawing" such thefts, given that
enforcement is so problematic.

I don't know if this makes my personal morality clearer, or if my
personal morality matters. I just wanted to make this clear, to
prevent misunderstandings.

Let me state a set of points in the context of locking doors, laws
about entering a house even when the doors are unlocked, the role of
the law, etc. (This has actually come up a couple of times as a
parallel to crypto, to leaving files around for decryption, etc.)

* Wise people don't just trust to laws about breaking-and-entering,
they put locks on their doors. (And they use strong crypto when
necessary, etc.)

* An unlocked door is not a legal excuse for entering a house. Basic
idea of property rights, a Schelling point for rights. (The issue of
"unauthorized access" to computers via modems is a more problematic
one in property rights; I have no firm conclusions yet, and hence I
support using cryptographic access protocols to make the issue
technologically moot.)

* Regardless of whether I've locked my doors, if I find an intruder
inside my house I'll shoot first and ask questions later. Though I
don't support the ex post facto imposition of a death penalty for this
entry, I support those who defend their property and themselves.

* The law should not distinguish between locked and unlocked doors,
period. While prudence dictates that doors should be locked, to cut
down on the issues above, the law should be blind on this. To the
extent there is any centralized law, that is.

* A better solution: private law. One contracts with a PPL agency.
They will likely charge for enforcement, as insurance and security
companies currently do. Having an unlocked door--deduced somehow--may
result in cancelled service, or higher premiums, etc. (There are too
many issues to debate here, so I won't. Hal and others are well
familiar with this...newcomers are urged to read up first. I've cited
the books several times.)

In summary, I can see some cyberspatial actions as triggering me into
taking physical actions. With strong crypto though, and
untraceability, the playing field changes dramatically and most
cyberspace actions are unpunishable in the "real world."

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."