From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 890280e471f1577ae4b6a5b91dc164e652794787feb0c0bad2a9671b8b4fb0d7
Message ID: <199601270114.CAA15160@utopia.hacktic.nl>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-27 02:08:18 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 10:08:18 +0800
From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 10:08:18 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: weak cryptoanarchy
Message-ID: <199601270114.CAA15160@utopia.hacktic.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Some non-cypherpunks seem afraid of Tim May's cryptoanarchy,
which, to quote Dr. Denning's recent paper, "suggest the
impending arrival of a Brave New World in which governments, as
we know them, have crumbled, disappeared, and been replaced by
virtual communities of individuals doing as they wish without
interference."
Perhaps these people are worrying needlessly. I don't think
cryptoanarchy (in this strong form) is a likely scenario for the
future. Even if strong cryptography and anonymous transaction
systems are used by everyone, governments can continue to
control people's physical actions and properties. The physical
world will continue to exist, even if it becomes relatively less
important.
I think a better prediction for the implications of strong
crypto is what I would call "weak cryptoanarchy." That is,
cryptography will allow virtual communities the option to exist
without the possibility of inteference by force. Certainly some
virtual communities, such as moderated discussion groups, will
opt to have formal or informal governments. The key is that
people will have the choice of participating in communities
where physical violence will be absolutely powerless.
Stated in this form, cryptoanarchy is hardly controversial.
Plus, this weak form of cryptoanarchy has a much better chance
of being realized, because it does not require the collapse of
existing governments, only the creation of new communities
without governments.
Return to January 1996
Return to “Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>”