From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 93 22:53:50 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Digital warfare
In-Reply-To: <199309110508.AA18091@tramp.cc.utexas.edu>
Message-ID: <9309110548.AA06074@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Mr. McCoy <mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> of `strong cryptography' and `anarchy':

>The two are really inseperable and it seems to be of little value to
>pretend that they are not.

that is, 

>If you have the ability to send message that is private there is nothing to
>prevent that message from being a digital cheque for payment of services.
>The "underground economy" is probably a lot larger than you would imagine,
>and given the current political climate you might be able to get a lot
>farther with the masses by telling them that digital money will give them
>the ability to tell the IRS where to stick thier noses than pretending it
>would never happen in the "crypto-enlightened age" and have an opponent
>bring it up as a point against strong crypto.

I think this is absolutely baseless. Cash is just as untraceable as a
cryptographically encoded message. Have governments collapsed on the
existence of cash? (well, there's this thing called inflation, but
that's something else...)  Do we really think that criminals will
flourish if only they could get their hands on digital cash? don't
criminals make a pretty ingenious use of all the rudimentary tools in
use today? is lack of strong cryptography or digital cash preventing
all kinds of sordid mischief, criminality, and terrorism? is the fate
of the world teetering on the use of the RSA algorithm for [x] size
keys or the ability to generate primes and factor numbers?

Definitely, these new technologies will give rise to new *forms* of
criminality, but the delicate ratio between `lawful citizens' and `evil
violators' will assuredly always stay the same. Actually, truly
powerful new technology, despite all the rampant and paranoid fears of
the populace, has always inherently favored virtue and order in the long run.

While I also find the anarchic talk on the list someone disconcerting
and misguided, I find it ridiculous to claim that cryptography is a
technology that is inherently conducive to anarchy or the deterioration
of social order. It *is* conducive, however, to a new kind of
government and order unlike any we've ever seen before, and
unfortunately it will be so unlike anything in historical experience --
so unlike any `order' we've ever imagined -- that perhaps the crude
term `anarchy' is the most apropos of all in our vocabulary. Bush was
right on only one count in his characterization of `The New World
Order' -- in supposing it exists. Otherwise, the cypherpunks take over
the true vision.

I *do* believe that we will see entirely new `taxation' systems with
the advent of digital cash. It will just be exercised (or `excised') in
different ways. We are likely to see mechanisms at the digital bank
point for collecting a `transaction tax' (what a sales tax is today).

We may also see the creation of `virtual governments' in which the
geographical location of an individual is irrelevant to his choice of
government, and perhaps for the first time in history the individual
can choose freely among all those that exist, to that which best suits
his preferences, and the so-called `social contract' between the
citizen and his government is actually made *explicit* for the first
time. This will all happen on some levels.

But only the silly, pale bureacrats in the NSA attribute the Collapse
of the World and the Plague of the BoogieMen to the advent and
proliferation of strong cryptography.  Cryptography is not synonymous
with tax evasion, terrorism, or utter chaos. It is simply as neutral,
powerful, and liberating as communication itself. In fact, for the
first time we are beginning to realize what `communication' truly entails.