From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 12:58:13 -0500
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Kid Gloves or Megaphones
Message-ID: <199603141529.HAA12877@largo.remailer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I've been engaged in a background discussion with some folks about how
to treat a new protocol, when to speak, etc.  Elements of that
discussion have become relevant to the list widely.

The situation is thus.  Ian Goldberg et al. have developed a protocol
for simultaneous payer and payee anonymity.  It appears to be novel,
albeit not entirely unanticipated.  The protocol works with the
existing bank signing oracle and could interoperate with Mark Twain's
current system.

The suggestion was made, paraphrasing -- couldn't we just not talk
about this too loudly yet?

... NO!

Perhaps the single most important lesson I've learned from cypherpunks
is that code alone doesn't cut it.  Not code alone, not code widely
distributed, not even code widely used.  Some measure of toleration in
society for activities conducted in private is _necessary_ for long
term success.  Not convenient, not easier, but necessary.

The whole Clipper situation testifies to this.  Unless there is a
public concensus that people generally should be able to use their own
cryptography, then such use will become marginalized.  Legislatures
will outlaw, the public will disapprove, and vigilantes will hunt down
improper use.  That, in my book, means we've lost.

Code is clearly still necessary.  Code demonstrates what actually
happens.  To write code is to invoke and evoke the latent and
insufficiently articulated desires for privacy in the world at large.

Similarly with anonymous transactions.  Unless a similar concensus
exists, we will have another marginal activity.  Again, I count this a
loss.

Backlash will result from later disclosure that the payment systems we
generally as cypherpunks have undisclosed properties, that we as a
loose group have dissimulated and even lied outright about the
capabilities of the systems we advocate.  This backlash will wipe away
many gains we might have made and eliminate the possibility of future
ones.

The backlash will be justified, because it will be the natural result
of a demonstration of bad faith.  One such demonstration now, and who
would know when the next was coming, or that we had not hoarded
encrypted agendas all along in our hearts?  And then, since we would
not be believed, all the propaganda of our opponents will triumph.
The Four Horsepersons will come trotting out in grand inquisitional
spectacle, and there will be no counterpoint, because the devil's
advocate will have been discovered to have been guilty himself.

It is foolishness itself to deceive a public which is substantially in
favor of the program of complete privacy.  We must appeal to the
public that finally will decide, not to some officials today who have
power and tomorrow who will not.  Clipper itself was not defeated by
constructive engagement with the Clinton wiretap administration.
Clipper was defeated by a general call to arms.

Therefore, shout out to the world that payee anonymity is possible with
ecash(TM)!

Eric