From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@polaris.mindport.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 16:23:21 PDT
To: "David C. Lambert" <dcl@panix.com>
Subject: Re: CYPHERPUNK considered harmful
In-Reply-To: <199509171657.MAA26446@panix.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950917184519.17849D-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Sun, 17 Sep 1995, David C. Lambert wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> Black Unicorn <unicorn@polaris.mindport.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Sep 1995, David C. Lambert wrote:
> >
> > > BTW, I'm not for changing the name of the list, but I do see the logic
> > > in a more establishment-friendly name to use when lobbying the public.
> > 
> > Distrubute [sic] watered down cypherpunk "teachings" in more benign forms
 which 
> > hide their true (Ohhh! Scary!) potential in an effort to make them commonly 
> > acceptable to joe sixpack.
> 
> I believe you misstate the point that people are trying to make.
> 
> I haven't seen anyone advocating the "watering down" of any so-called
> "teachings" to "hide" any "true potential".  The only thing that people
> have mentioned is that some of the less clueful out there have a knee
> jerk response to the name "cypherpunk".  That's all.

I don't believe you can have one without the other.  Tell me someone who 
is sensitive enough to be offended by the term "cypherpunk" won't be 
alarmed at concepts like crypto-anarchy.


> 
> > Can't we all see what road this leads down?
> 
> No.  Please enlighten us.
>

When you begin compromising to meet the public sentiment you end up 
aiming for the middle.  "He who builds on the people builds on mud."  I 
believe this especially true in the United States.  The general 
population has no tolerance/time/interest in the deeper issues involved 
here, and are much more apt to bow to the "law and order" arguments made 
by the various political entities here.  These are emotional arguments to 
which Joe Sixpack is particularly open.  Enter the four horsemen.

I believe working to recruit "the people" and lobby "the leaders" to 
embrace the ramification of free and strong crypto is a losing game.  My 
money in information futures is going into "yes" certificates on the 
question of "Unescrowed Strong Crypto Banned in U.S. by 2000."


> > At the risk of politicizing the issue, I wouldn't be the first to call this 
> > "left-speak" or "term-sanitizing."
> 
> And this matters because...?
>


The fact that you need this question answered does more to rebuke your 
position than I ever could.

 
> > Really the core issue is that the citizens of their respective nations 
> > need to either:
> > 
> > 1>  See cryptography for the important individual rights issue that it
> > is and latch on to the basic desire for free and unmonitored commerce and 
> > exchange without censorship or observation.
> > 
> > or
> > 
> > 2>  Decide that they are not interested in the issues because these 
> > issues are too radical, or simply because their own political ideas
> > fall left (or statist) of this spectrum.
> 
> What exactly is it that you feel "the citizens of their respective
> nations" are doing right now, if not this?

Be real.  What percentage of [insert nation here]'s citizens would be 
able to discuss strong encryption with anything more than a comic book 
understanding?

i.e., the answer to your question is "mostly nothing."

> > in the end I 
> > don't care if every joe sixpack on the planet uses real crypto, just so
> > long as those I am to conduct commerce (of data or goods) with do.
> 
> If this is the case, then I'm at a loss to understand how you fail to see
> the merit in a "term-sanitizing", as you put it, in order to make the use
> of strong crypto desired and required by Joe Sixpack.

You're error is in assuming Joe Sixpack desires or thinks he requires strong 
crypto.

  How do you expect
> the legality of string crypto to survive unless Joe and his friends exert
> political pressure to keep it alive?

I don't expect its legality to survive in the United States, nor do I 
expect it to survive despite "political pressure" (that nature of which 
which you conveniently do not idenfify) and finally, I don't expect Joe 
Sixpack, and his friends to exert any (undefined) political pressure- or care.

If people want to try and organize a crypto awareness program, fine.
If people want to try and organize a crypto propoganda program, count me out.

If you don't understand the difference, you need to study history and 
political science.

If Joe Sixpack can't deal with the core, unsanitized ramifications of 
strong crypto, Joe Sixpack isn't ready to have strong crypto.  This is, 
in my view, realism, and intellectual evolution in action.  If strong 
crypto is the advantage I suspect it will be, then those nations which 
use it will endow its citizens with those significant advantages, 
hopefully to the disadvantage of the banning nations.  With any luck, 
this will result in the eventual lack of world/market infulence of 
crypto-ignorant Joe Sixpacks.  This in my view is "a good thing."
I would like the United States to be pro-crypto, but I'm not sure I give 
the country and its current political system as a whole that much credit.

> Isn't it obvious that unless this
> happens, that strong (unescrowed) crypto is on the path to being outlawed
> (at least in the US, and several other countries)?
> 
> > The final judgement will be in the advantage of velocity and security of 
> > transactions and the wealth that this "allocates" to those wise enough to 
> > adopt crypto exchange systems.  Evolution in action.  If this makes me 
> > elitist, so be it.
> 
> Elitist or not, this is beside the point.

No, it is exactly the point.

> People are bringing up political
> and rhetorical concerns because they feel that political and persuasive
> methods are required *right now* in order to preserve the *legality* of 
> strong crypto.

And I believe them a waste of time because I feel that political and 
persuasive methods are useless *right now* or in the *foreseeable future*.

The only thing that will stop this legislation will be a sudden awakening 
of the American People to freedom of speech in the face of an offered and 
vague promise of "security."  (Read: Good Luck)

The FBI is screaming that strong crypto is nasty stuff to the Executive.  
Certainly the intelligence agencies are doing the same.
The Executive is going to support if not outright push through a key 
forfeiture bill, and about all I can see standing in the way will be 
cost- which in this bill is going to be small.

> I only care about whether Joe Sixpack wants strong crypto
> because if I can't persuade him that he does, he won't help me keep it
> legal in my country of residence.

So if you are so intouch with Joe Sixpack, what does he think?  Do you 
have some evidence to suggest that there is any widespread awareness of 
the issues among Joe and Jane?  Surveys?  Studies?  Anything?

Go out on the street and ask 10 random people.  Hell, ask 10 
intellectuals not in the computer science field.  I think your level of 
disillusion will approach mine, and if not, then I do not give your 
powers of observation much credit.

>  Once it's legality seems safe(r) from
> attack, he can go on using rot13 for all I care.

I think you have a long wait.

Part of the entire issue here is securing your own privacy rather than 
letting the government do it for you.  By waiting for someone to TELL 
YOU that you are now ALLOWED to secure your own privacy, why are you any 
better than he who doesn't use strong crypto?  Instead you should, while 
perhaps allocate some effort to political concerns, be working to 
propogate crypto systems which are untraceable, do not bear the 
recipiants key identifier in each message, and otherwise able to endure a 
crypto "Dark Age" which I see right around the corner here.

In other words:

Secure it yourself.  Privacy comes to you only if you secure it 
yourself.  If you believe that political action is the way to do this, be 
my guest- I happen to think you are wasting your time.  Time will judge 
the winner of this debate in any event.  I hope I am wrong, I expect I am 
not.

> 
> David C. Lambert
> dcl@panix.com
> (finger for PGP public key)
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
[...]
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 

---
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information