From: Alex Strasheim <cp@proust.suba.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 04:31:18 +0800
To: frissell@panix.com (Duncan Frissell)
Subject: Re: Net Control is Thought Control
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960110175223.006a6bcc@panix.com>
Message-ID: <199601102011.OAA01630@proust.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


[a lot of good stuff deleted]

> Control of the Nets will prove as difficult as the control of thoughts
> themselves. 

I agree with everything you said.

It seems to me that the simplest way to describe crypto anarchy is to say
that it's the observation that technological change is going to make
certain kinds of rules -- like our current tax and censorship laws --
nearly impossible to enforce.  The analysis makes sense to me, and I'm
inclined to believe that the crypto anarchy predictions will be borne out. 

Censorship is rapidly becoming technically infeasible.

That doesn't mean that attempts to censor the net won't be mounted, that 
they won't be damaging, and that people won't go to jail.  It just means 
that all of that ugliness will go down for nothing.

That's why it's important to try to educate people about the dynamics of
the net, and to try to persuade them that our analysis is accurate.  If
our government would simply look at things as they are with respect to
crypto, they would see that along with the inevitable loss of control 
there are a lot of opportunities and benefits, both politically and 
economically, to the new dynamic.

We ought to be trying to open up speech in countries like North Korea and 
Iraq with crypto tools.  We ought to make sure that American companies 
reap the benefits of the new financial tools that are coming down the 
pike.  And we ought to make sure that the software industry doesn't move 
overseas because our people aren't allowed to give their customers the 
crypto the market demands.

Our government's inability to accept reality on these issues is alreacy
costing business tens of billions of dollars each year, shipping jobs
overseas, and having a chilling effect on computer security resarch at
home and abroad (thereby exposing computer users to risks and damages they
might otherwise avoid).  Our own rights as citizens are being compromised,
and the arrival of free speech in other countries is being postponed
needlessly. 

For what?  So Sen. Exon and the NSA can tilt at windmills?

I wish the NSA would participate in these discussions publicly.  It
wouldn't even be necessary for them to do it as an institution.  Let's 
get some individuals from the NSA who agree with the agency's position 
out here to defend it.  Engage us in debate on the net.

Here's a challenge for the NSA:

Let's find a neutral third party, an academic or a journalist perhaps
(someone from CSPAN?), to moderate a newsgroup or a mail list so that
things won't degenerate into a shouting match.  We'll make a rule that
even posts that don't pass moderation will be published in a different
list, so that charges of biased moderation can be evaluated.

Tell us what you're trying to accomplish, why your goals are in the
nation's interest, and how your policy will accomplish those goals.  Then
let us challenge your arguments.  Let us explain what we're trying to
accomplish, why our goals are beneficial, and how our proposed policies
will accomplish those goals.  Then you guys can take your best shots at
us. 

Of course it's unthinkable that the NSA would accept such a challenge. 
But if you think about it, it shouldn't be.  These are important issues --
they affect our civil liberties and our wallets.  This is a democracy. 
And if the NSA believes in the strength of its position, it ought to have
enough confidence to defend it in public.