From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 23:30:20 PST
To: rishab@dxm.ernet.in
Subject: Re: Known data havens for pirates? Doubtful
In-Reply-To: <gate.ms64yc1w165w@dxm.ernet.in>
Message-ID: <199501180700.XAA14684@netcom2.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


The comments about data havens have been interesting to read. Being
the analytic-retentive type, I like to view things as tables and
graphs, of such things as: who knows location (nobody, some,
everybody) vs. types of data supported, for example. But I won't make
such a table here, now.

[Note on my responses. Netcom is not accepting mail connections, so
Cypherpunk mail basically doesn't arrive from the early morning to
very late in the evening. This has to do with toad not using "MX mail
records," as near as we could figure out. Please don't send
suggestions, as I can't get either toad or Netcom changed. I merely
point this out to explain why I basically am out of the debate during
the day. The information highway is becoming a dirt road.]

I mainly agree with Rishab's point: the idea of a known, fixed
location that carries Infocalypse material is deeply flawed. Data
havens just won't be in known locations, at least not primarily.

While I found Bruce Sterling's "data havens" in the Caribbean, Africa,
and Asia interesting and provocative, they made no sense as viable,
stable entities. No site which is _known_ to be a Warez site, a
bootleg Nazi medical data site, a copyright violation haven, etc.,
will last for long. Whether knocked out as a result of a
U.N. Resolution (infinitely easier than zapping Saddam), or sabotaged
the way the French SDECE hit the "Rainbow Warrior," or merely
subverted at ground level, the site cannot last. "The Center cannot
hold."

Fortunately, there is no reason for data havens to be in fixed
locations. Or in traceable, identifiable locations.

My BlackNet thought experiment was much more than a mere Gedanken
experiment: as many of you learned, it was/is a real key, and 2-way
communication has happened. Of course, you mostly all know I was the
instigator (and those who don't haven't followed the debate and/or
haven't read the Cyphernomicon section on BlackNet).

rishab@dxm.ernet.in wrote:

> I suppose you _are_ aware that the US has threatened China with punitive
> duties on $100 BILLION dollars worth of trade, and that China has started
> holding some show trials (without shutting down its state-owned CD-piracy
> factories). It's not going to be easy to find a country more willing and
> able to ignore international copyright law (Berne Convention etc) than China;
> however, despite howls of protest even China is likely to knuckle down 
> eventually. What may be likely is distributed piracy markets, such as 
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> described in Tim's BlackNet spoof.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, this is the way to go. The data havens have a location that is a
public key in cyberspace. Think of it as one entity placing an
anonymous, untraceable classified ad in a newspaper, readable by many,
and others placing ads in response. A two-way communication channel is
thus opened up, without regard for the physical location of each, the
nature of the communication, the data to be transferred, etc.

All of that is just detail.

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
                       | 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.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tc/tcmay