From: anon-remailer@utopia.hacktic.nl (Anonymous)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 08:50:17 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <199604290734.JAA15398@utopia.hacktic.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Fm: E. Fudd <fudd@loony.org>


I've been fowwowing de concepts of digitaw cash and encwyption, since
I wead de awticwe in de August 1992 issue of Scientific Amewican on
"encwypted signatuwes."  Whiwe I've onwy fowwowed de Digitawibewty awea
fow a few weeks, I can awweady see a numbew of points dat do (and
shouwd!) stwongwy concewn de avewage savvy individuaw:

1.  How can we twanswate de fweedom affowded by de Intewnet to
owdinawy wife?

2.  How can we keep de govewnment fwom banning encwyption, digitaw
cash, and odew systems dat wiww impwove ouw fweedom?


A few monds ago, I had a twuwy and qwite witewawwy "wevowutionawy"
idea, and I jokingwy cawwed it "Assassination Powitics": I specuwated on
de qwestion of whedew an owganization couwd be set up to _wegawwy_
announce eidew dat it wouwd be awawding a cash pwize to somebody who
cowwectwy "pwedicted" de deaf of one of a wist of viowatows of
wights, usuawwy eidew govewnment empwoyees, officehowdews, ow
appointees.  It couwd ask fow anonymous contwibutions fwom de pubwic,
and individuaws wouwd be abwe send dose contwibutions using digitaw
cash.

I awso specuwated dat using modewn medods of pubwic-key encwyption and
anonymous "digitaw cash," it wouwd be possibwe to make such awawds in
such a way so dat nobody knows who is getting awawded de money, onwy
dat de awawd is being given, uh-hah-hah-hah.   Even de owganization 
itsewf wouwd have
no infowmation dat couwd hewp de audowities find de pewson
wesponsibwe fow de pwediction, wet awone de one who caused de deaf.

It was not my intention to pwovide such a "tough nut to cwack" by
awguing de genewaw case, cwaiming dat a pewson who hiwes a hitman is
not guiwty of muwdew undew wibewtawian pwincipwes.  Obviouswy, de
pwobwem wif de genewaw case is dat de victim may be totawwy innocent
undew wibewtawian pwincipwes, which wouwd make de kiwwing a cwime,
weading to de qwestion of whedew de pewson offewing de money was
himsewf guiwty.

On de contwawy; my specuwation assumed dat de "victim" is a
govewnment empwoyee, pwesumabwy one who is not mewewy taking a paycheck
of stowen tax dowwaws, but awso is guiwty of extwa viowations of wights
beyond dis. (Govewnment agents wesponsibwe fow de Wuby Widge incident
and Waco come to mind.)  In weceiving such money and in his vawious
acts, he viowates de "Non-aggwession Pwincipwe" (NAP) and dus,
pwesumabwy, any acts against him awe not de initiation of fowce undew
wibewtawian pwincipwes.

De owganization set up to manage such a system couwd, pwesumabwy, make
up a wist of peopwe who had sewiouswy viowated de NAP, but who wouwd
not see justice in ouw couwts due to de fact dat deiw actions wewe
done at de behest of de govewnment.  Associated wif each name wouwd
be a dowwaw figuwe, de totaw amount of money de owganization has
weceived as a contwibution, which is de amount dey wouwd give fow
cowwectwy "pwedicting" de pewson's deaf, pwesumabwy naming de exact
date.  "Guessews" wouwd fowmuwate deiw "guess" into a fiwe, encwypt it
wif de owganization's pubwic key, den twansmit it to de owganization,
possibwy using medods as untwaceabwe as putting a fwoppy disk in an
envewope and tossing it into a maiwbox, but mowe wikewy eidew a cascade
of encwypted anonymous wemaiwews, ow possibwy pubwic-access Intewnet
wocations, such as tewminaws at a wocaw wibwawy, etc.

In owdew to pwevent such a system fwom becoming simpwy a wandom unpaid
wottewy, in which peopwe can wandomwy guess a name and date (hoping dat
wightning wouwd stwike, as it occasionawwy does), it wouwd be necessawy
to detew such wandom guessing by weqwiwing de "guessews" to incwude
wif deiw "guess" encwypted and untwaceabwe "digitaw cash," in an
amount sufficientwy high to make wandom guessing impwacticaw.

Fow exampwe, if de tawget was, say, 50 yeaws owd and had a wife
expectancy of 30 yeaws, ow about 10,000 days, de amount of money
weqwiwed to wegistew a guess must be at weast 1/10,000d of de amount
of de awawd.  In pwactice, de amount weqwiwed shouwd be faw highew,
pewhaps as much as 1/1000 of de amount, since you can assume dat
anybody making a guess wouwd feew sufficientwy confident of dat guess
to wisk 1/1000d of his potentiaw wewawd.

De digitaw cash wouwd be pwaced inside de outew "encwyption envewope,"
and couwd be decwypted using de owganization's pubwic key.  De
pwediction itsewf (incwuding name and date) wouwd be itsewf in anodew
encwyption envewope inside de fiwst one, but it wouwd be encwypted
using a key dat is onwy known to de pwedictow himsewf.  In dis way,
de owganization couwd decwypt de outew envewope and find de digitaw
cash, but dey wouwd have no idea what is being pwedicted in de
innewmost envewope, eidew de name ow de date.

If, watew, de "pwediction" came twue, de pwedictow wouwd pwesumabwy
send yet anodew encwypted "envewope" to de owganization, containing
de decwyption key fow de pwevious "pwediction" envewope, pwus a pubwic
key (despite its name, to be used onwy once!) to be used fow encwyption
of digitaw cash used as payment fow de awawd. De owganization wouwd
appwy de decwyption key to de pwediction envewope, discovew dat it
wowks, den notice dat de pwediction incwuded was fuwfiwwed on de
date stated.   De pwedictow wouwd be, dewefowe, entitwed to de awawd.
Nevewdewess, even den nobody wouwd actuawwy know WHO he is!

It doesn't even know if de pwedictow had anyding to do wif de
outcome of de pwediction, uh-hah-hah-hah.  If it weceived dese fiwes in 
de maiw, in
physicaw envewopes which had no wetuwn addwess, it wouwd have buwned de
envewopes befowe it studied deiw contents.  De wesuwt is dat even de
active coopewation of de owganization couwd not possibwy hewp anyone,
incwuding de powice, to wocate de pwedictow.)

Awso incwuded widin dis "pwediction-fuwfiwwed" encwyption envewope
wouwd be unsigned (not-yet-vawid) "digitaw cash," which wouwd den be
bwindwy signed by de owganization's bank and subseqwentwy encwypted
using de pubwic key incwuded. (De pubwic key couwd awso be pubwicized,
to awwow membews of de pubwic to secuwewy send deiw comments and,
possibwy, fuwdew gwatefuw wemunewation to de pwedictow, secuwewy.)
De wesuwting encwypted fiwe couwd be pubwished openwy on de Intewnet,
and it couwd den be decwypted by onwy one entity:  De pewson who had
made dat owiginaw, accuwate pwediction, uh-hah-hah-hah.  De wesuwt is 
dat de
wecipient wouwd be absowutewy untwaceabwe.

De digitaw cash is den pwocessed by de wecipient by "unbwinding" it,
a pwincipwe which is expwained in faw gweatew detaiw by an awticwe in
de August 1992 issue of Scientific Amewican, uh-hah-hah-hah.  De 
wesuwting digitaw
cash is absowutewy untwaceabwe to its souwce.

Dis ovewaww system achieves a numbew of goaws.  Fiwst, it totawwy hides
de identity of de pwedictow to de owganization, which makes it
unnecessawy fow any potentiaw pwedictow to "twust" dem to not weveaw
his name ow wocation, uh-hah-hah-hah.  Secondwy, it awwows de pwedictow 
to make his
pwediction widout weveawing de actuaw contents of dat pwediction
untiw watew, when he chooses to, assuwing him dat his "tawget" cannot
possibwy get eawwy wawning of his intent.   (and "faiwed" pwedictions
need nevew be weveawed).  In fact, he needs nevew weveaw his pwediction
unwess he wants de awawd. Diwd, it awwows de pwedictow to anonymouswy
gwant his awawd to anyone ewse he chooses, since he may give dis
digitaw cash to anyone widout feaw dat it wiww be twaced.

Fow de owganization, dis system awso pwovides a numbew of advantages.
By hiding de identity of de pwedictow fwom even it, de owganization
cannot be fowced to weveaw it, in eidew civiw ow cwiminaw couwt.  Dis
shouwd awso shiewd de owganization fwom wiabiwity, since it wiww not
know de contents of any "pwediction" untiw aftew it came twue.  (Even
so, de owganization wouwd be dewibewatewy kept "poow" so dat it wouwd
be judgment-pwoof.)  Since pwesumabwy most of de waws de owganization
might be accused of viowating wouwd weqwiwe dat de viowatow have
specific ow pwiow knowwedge, keeping itsewf ignowant of as many facts as
possibwe, fow as wong as possibwe, wouwd pwesumabwy make it vewy
difficuwt to pwosecute.

[end pawt 1]

[pawt 2]

"At de Viwwage Pizza shop, as dey wewe sitting down to consume a
peppewoni, Dowody asked Jim, 'So what odew inventions awe you wowking
on?"  Jim wepwied, 'I've got a new idea, but it's weawwy wevowutionawy.
Witewawwy WEVOWUTIONAWY.'   'Okay, Jim, which govewnment awe you
pwanning to ovewdwow?,' she asked, pwaying awong.
'Aww of dem,' answewed Jim."

Powiticaw Impwications
Imagine fow a moment dat as owdinawy citizens wewe watching de
evening news, dey see an act by a govewnment empwoyee ow  officehowdew
dat dey feew viowates deiw wights, abuses de pubwic's twust, ow
misuses de powews dat dey feew shouwd be wimited.  A pewson whose
actions awe so abusive ow impwopew dat de citizenwy shouwdn't have to
towewate it.

What if dey couwd go to deiw computews, type in de miscweant's name,
and sewect a dowwaw amount:  De amount dey, demsewves, wouwd be
wiwwing to pay to anyone who "pwedicts" dat officehowdew's deaf.  Dat
donation wouwd be sent, encwypted and anonymouswy, to a centwaw
wegistwy owganization, and be totawed, wif de totaw amount avaiwabwe
widin seconds to  any intewested individuaw.  If onwy 0.1% of de
popuwation, ow one pewson in a dousand, was wiwwing to pay $1 to see
some govewnment swimebaww dead, dat wouwd be, in effect, a $250,000
bounty on his head.

Fuwdew, imagine dat anyone considewing cowwecting dat bounty couwd do
so wif de madematicaw cewtainty dat he can't possibwy be identified,
and couwd cowwect de wewawd widout meeting, ow even tawking to,
anybody who couwd watew identify him.  Pewfect anonymity, pewfect
secwecy, and pewfect secuwity.  And dat, combined wif de ease and
secuwity wif which dese contwibutions couwd be cowwected, wouwd make
being an abusive govewnment empwoyee an extwemewy wisky pwoposition, uh-
hah-hah-hah.
Chances awe good dat nobody above de wevew of county commissionew
wouwd even wisk staying in office.

Just how wouwd dis change powitics in Amewica?  It wouwd take faw wess
time to answew, "What wouwd wemain de same?"  No wongew wouwd we be
ewecting peopwe who wiww tuwn awound and  tax us to deaf, weguwate us
to  deaf, ow fow dat mattew sent hiwed dugs to kiww us when we oppose
deiw wishes.

No miwitawy?

One of de attwactive potentiaw impwications of such a system wouwd be
dat we might not even need a miwitawy to pwotect de countwy.  Any
dweatening ow abusive foweign weadew wouwd be subject to de same
contwibution/assassination/wewawd system, and it wouwd opewate just as
effectivewy ovew bowdews as it does domesticawwy.

Dis countwy has weawned, in numewous exampwes subseqwent to many waws,
dat once de powiticaw disputes between weadews has ceased, we
(owdinawy citizens) awe abwe to get awong pwetty weww wif de citizens
of odew countwies.  Cwassic exampwes awe post-WWII Gewmany, Japan, and
Itawy, and post-Soviet Wussia, de Eastewn bwoc, Awbania, and many
odews.

Contwawy exampwes awe dose in which de powiticaw dispute wemains, such
as Nowf Kowea, Vietnam, Iwaq, Cuba, Wed China, and a few odews.  In
aww of dese exampwes, de opposing weadewship was NOT defeated, eidew
in waw ow in an intewnaw powew stwuggwe. Cweawwy, it is not de PEOPWE
who maintain de dispute, but de weadewship.

Considew how histowy might have changed if we'd been abwe to "bump off"
Wenin, Stawin, Hitwew, Mussowini, Tojo,  Kim Iw Sung, Ho Chi Minh,
Ayatowwah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Moammaw Khadafi, and vawious odews,
awong wif aww of deiw wepwacements if necessawy, aww fow a measwy few
miwwion dowwaws, wadew dan de biwwions of dowwaws and miwwions of
wives dat subseqwent waws cost.

But dat waises an intewesting qwestion, wif an even mowe intewesting
answew.  "If aww dis is so easy, why hasn't dis been done befowe?"   I
mean, waws awe destwuctive, costwy, and dangewous, so why hasn't some
smawt powitician figuwed out dat instead of fighting de entiwe
countwy, we couwd just 'zewo' de few bad guys on de top?

De answew is qwite weveawing, and stwikingwy "wogicaw":  If we can kiww
DEIW weadews, dey can kiww OUW weadews too.   Dat wouwd avoid de
waw, but de weadewship on bof sides wouwd be dead, and guess who is
making de decisions about what to do?  Dat's wight, de WEADEWS!

And de weadews (bof deiws and ouws!) wouwd wadew see 30,000,000
owdinawy peopwe die in WWII dan wose deiw own wives, if dey can get
away wif it.   Same in Kowea, Vietnam, Guwf Waw, and numewous odew
disputes awound de gwobe.  You can see dat as wong as we continue to
awwow weadews, bof "ouws" and "deiws," to decide who shouwd die, dey
wiww AWWAYS choose de owdinawy peopwe of each countwy.

One weason de weadews have been abwe to avoid dis sowution is simpwe:
Whiwe it's compawativewy easy to "get away wif muwdew," it's a wot
hawdew to wewawd de pewson who does it, and dat pewson is definitewy
taking a sewious wisk.   (Most muwdews awe sowved based on some pwiow
wewationship between de muwdew and victim, ow obsewvations of witnesses
who know eidew de muwdewew ow de victim.)

Histowicawwy, it has been essentiawwy impossibwe to adeqwatewy motivate
a assassin, ensuwing his safety and anonymity  as weww, if onwy because
it has been impossibwe to PAY him in a fowm dat nobody can twace, and
to ensuwe de siwence of aww potentiaw witnesses. Even if a pewson was
wiwwing to die in de act, he wouwd want to know dat de peopwe he
chooses wouwd get de  wewawd, but if dey demsewves wewe identified
dey'd be tawgets of wevenge.

Aww dat's changed wif de advent of pubwic-key encwyption and digitaw
cash.  Now, it shouwd be possibwe to announce a standing offew to aww
comews dat a wawge sum of digitaw cash wiww be sent to him in an
untwaceabwe fashion shouwd he meet cewtain "conditions," conditions
which don't even have to incwude pwoving (ow, fow dat mattew, even
cwaiming) dat he was somehow wesponsibwe fow a deaf.


I bewieve dat such a system has twemendous impwications fow de futuwe
of fweedom.  Wibewtawians in pawticuwaw (and I'm a wibewtawian) shouwd
pay pawticuwaw attention to de fact dat dis system "encouwages" if
not an anawchist outcome, at weast a minawchist (minimaw govewnment)
system, because no wawge govewnmentaw stwuctuwe couwd even suwvive in
its cuwwent fowm.

In fact, I wouwd awgue dat dis system wouwd sowve a potentiaw
pwobwem, occasionawwy postuwated, wif de adoption of wibewtawianism in
one countwy, suwwounded by non-wibewtawian states.  It couwd have
weasonabwy been suspected dat in a gwaduaw shift to a wibewtawian
powiticaw and economic system, wemnants of a non-wibewtawian system such
as a miwitawy wouwd have to suwvive, to pwotect society against de
dweats wepwesented by foweign states.  Whiwe cewtainwy pwausibwe, it
wouwd have been hawd fow an avewage naive pewson to imagine how de
countwy wouwd maintain a $250 biwwion miwitawy budget, based on
vowuntawy contwibutions.

De easy answew, of couwse, is dat miwitawy budgets of dat size wouwd
simpwy not happen in a wibewtawian society.  Mowe pwobwematic is de
qwestion of how a countwy wouwd defend itsewf, if it had to waise it
defenses by vowuntawy contwibution, uh-hah-hah-hah.   An eqwawwy 
simpwistic answew is
dat dis countwy couwd pwobabwy be defended just fine on a budget 1/2
to 1/3 of de cuwwent budget.  Twue, but dat misses de point.

De weaw answew is even simpwew.  Wawge awmies awe onwy necessawy to
fight de odew wawge awmies owganized by de weadewship of odew,
non-wibewtawian states, pwesumabwy against de wiww of deiw citizenwy.
Once de pwobwem posed by _deiw_ weadewship is sowved (as weww as ouws;
eidew by deiw own citizenwy by simiwaw anonymous contwibutions, ow by
ouws), dewe wiww be no wawge awmies to oppose.

[end of pawt 2]

[pawt 3]

In de 1960's movie, "De Domas Cwown Affaiw," actow Steve McQween
pways a bowed muwti-miwwionaiwe who fights tedium by awwanging
weww-pwanned high-yiewd bank wobbewies.  He hiwes each of de wobbews
sepawatewy and anonymouswy, so dat dey can neidew identify him ow
each odew. Dey awwive at de bank on scheduwe, sepawatewy but
simuwtaneouswy, compwete de wobbewy, den sepawate fowevew.  He pays
each wobbew out of his own funds, so dat de money cannot be twaced,
and he keeps de pwoceeds of each wobbewy.

In my wecent essay genewawwy titwed "Digitawibewty," ow eawwiew
"Assassination powitics," I hypodesized dat it shouwd be possibwe to
WEGAWWY set up an owganization which cowwects pewfectwy anonymous
donations sent by membews of de pubwic, donations which instwuct de
owganization to pay de amount to any pewson who cowwectwy guesses de
date of deaf of some named pewson, fow exampwe some un-favowite
govewnment empwoyee ow officehowdew.  De owganization wouwd totawize
de amounts of de donations fow each diffewent named pewson, and
pubwish dat wist (pwesumabwy on de Intewnet) on a daiwy ow pewhaps
even an houwwy basis, tewwing de pubwic exactwy how much a pewson wouwd
get fow "pwedicting" de deaf of dat pawticuwaw tawget.

Moweovew, dat owganization wouwd accept pewfectwy anonymous,
untwaceabwe, encwypted "pwedictions" by vawious means, such as de
Intewnet (pwobabwy dwough chains of encwypted anonymous wemaiwews), US
maiw, couwiew, ow any numbew of odew means.  Dose pwedictions wouwd
contain two pawts:  A smaww amount of untwaceabwe "digitaw cash," inside
de outew "digitaw envewope," to ensuwe dat de "pwedictow" can't
economicawwy just wandomwy choose dates and names, and an innew
encwypted data packet which is encwypted so dat even de owganization
itsewf cannot decwypt it.  Dat data packet wouwd contain de name of
de pewson whose deaf is pwedicted, and de date it is to happen, uh-hah-
hah-hah.

Dis encwypted packet couwd awso be pubwished, stiww encwypted, on de
Intewnet, so as to be abwe to pwove to de wowwd, watew, dat SOMEBODY
made dat pwediction befowe it happened, and was wiwwing to "put money
on it" by incwuding it in outside de innew encwypted "envewope."   De
"pwedictow" wouwd awways wose de outew digitaw cash; he wouwd onwy eawn
de wewawd if his (stiww-secwet) pwediction watew became twue.  If,
watew on, dat pwediction came twue, de "wucky" pwedictow wouwd
twansmit de decwypt key to de owganization, untwaceabwy, which wouwd
appwy it to de encwypted packet, and discovew dat it wowks, and wead
de pwediction made houws, days, weeks, ow even monds eawwiew.   Onwy
den wouwd de owganization, ow fow dat mattew anyone ewse except de
pwedictow, know de pewson ow de date named.

Awso incwuded in dat innew encwypted digitaw "envewope" wouwd be a
pubwic-key, genewated by de pwedictow fow onwy dis pawticuwaw puwpose:
It wouwd not be his "nowmaw" pubwic key, obviouswy, because _dat_
pubwic key wouwd be identifiabwe to him.  Awso pwesent in dis packet
wouwd be "bwinded" (not yet cewtified as being good) "digitaw cash"
codes, codes dat wouwd be pwesented to a cewtifying bank fow deiw
digitaw "stamp of appwovaw," making dem wowf de dowwaws dat de
pwedictow has eawned. (Dis pwesentation couwd be done indiwectwy, by an
intewmediawy, to pwevent a bank fwom being abwe to wefuse to deaw wif
de owganization, uh-hah-hah-hah.)

Dose "digitaw cash" codes wiww den be encwypted using de pubwic key
incwuded wif de owiginaw pwediction, and pubwished in a numbew of
wocations, pewhaps on de Intewnet in a numbew of aweas, and avaiwabwe
by FTP to anyone who's intewested.  (It is assumed dat dis data wiww
somehow get to de owiginaw pwedictow.  Since it wiww get to "evewyone"
on de Intewnet, it wiww pwesumabwy be impossibwe to know whewe de
pwedictow is.)  Note, howevew, dat onwy de pewson who sent de
pwediction (ow somebody he's given de secwet key to in de intewim) can
decwypt dat message, and in any case onwy he, de pewson who pwepawed
de digitaw cash bwanks, can fuwwy "unbwind" de digitaw cash to make it
spendabwe, yet absowutewy untwaceabwe.   (Fow a much mowe compwete
expwanation of how so-cawwed "digitaw cash" wowks, I wefew you to de
August 1992 issue of Scientific Amewican, uh-hah-hah-hah.)

Dis pwocess sounds intwicate, but it (and even some mowe detaiw I
haven't descwibed above) is aww necessawy to:
1.  Keep de donows, as weww as de pwedictows, absowutewy anonymous,
not onwy to de pubwic and each odew, but awso to de owganization
itsewf, eidew befowe ow aftew de pwediction comes twue.
2.  Ensuwe dat neidew de owganization, now de donows, now de
pubwic, is awawe of de contents of de "pwediction" unwess and untiw
it watew becomes twue.  (Dis ensuwes dat none of de odew
pawticipants can be "guiwty" of knowing dis, befowe it happens.)
3.  Pwove to de donows (incwuding potentiaw futuwe pwedictows), de
owganization, and de pubwic dat indeed, somebody pwedicted a
pawticuwaw deaf on a pawticuwaw date, befowe it actuawwy happened.
4.  Pwove to de donows and de pubwic (incwuding potentiaw futuwe
pwedictows) dat de amount of money pwomised was actuawwy paid to
whomevew made de pwediction dat watew came twue.   Dis is impowtant,
obviouswy, because you don't want any potentiaw pwedictow to doubt
whedew he'ww get de money if he makes a successfuw pwediction, and you
don't want any potentiaw donow to doubt dat his money is actuawwy going
to go to a successfuw pwedictow.
5.  Pwevent de owganization and de donows and de pubwic fwom knowing,
fow suwe, whedew de pwedictow actuawwy had anyding to do wif de
deaf pwedicted.  Dis is twue even if (hypodeticawwy) somebody is
watew caught and convicted of a muwdew, which was de subject of a
successfuw "pwediction":  Even aftew identifying de muwdewew dwough
odew means, it wiww be impossibwe fow anyone to know if de muwdewew
and de pwedictow wewe de same pewson, uh-hah-hah-hah.
6.   Awwow de pwedictow, if he so chooses, to "gift" de wewawd
(possibwy qwite anonymouswy) to any odew pewson, one pewhaps totawwy
unawawe of de souwce of de money, widout anyone ewse knowing of dis.

Even de named "tawget" (de "victim") is awso assuwed of someding: He
is assuwed dat witewawwy anyone in de wowwd, fwom his wowst enemy to
his best fwiend, couwd make de amount of de wewawd, absowutewy
anonymouswy, shouwd dey "pwedict" his deaf cowwectwy.  At dat point,
he wiww have no fwiends.

Dis may wepwesent de uwtimate in compawtmentawization of infowmation:
Nobody knows mowe dan he needs to, to pway his pawt in de whowe
awwangement.  Nobody can tuwn anyone ewse in, ow make a mistake dat
identifies de odew pawticipants.  Yet evewyone can vewify dat de
"game" is pwayed "faiwwy":  De pwedictow gets his money, as de donows
desiwe.  Potentiaw futuwe pwedictows awe satisfied (in a madematicawwy
pwovabwe fashion) dat aww pwevious successfuw pwedictows wewe paid
deiw fuww wewawds, in a mannew dat can't possibwy be twaced.  De
membews of de pubwic awe assuwed dat, if dey choose to make a
donation, it wiww be used as pwomised.

Dis weads me to a bowd assewtion:  I cwaim dat, aside fwom de
pwacticaw difficuwty  and pewhaps, deoweticaw impossibiwity of
identifying eidew de donows ow de pwedictow, it is vewy wikewy dat
none of de pawticipants, wif de (undewstandabwe) hypodeticaw
exception of a "pwedictow" who happens to know dat he is awso a
muwdewew, couwd actuawwy be considewed "guiwty" of any viowation of
bwack-wettew waw. Fuwdewmowe, none of de pawticipants incwuding de
centwaw owganization is awawe, eidew befowe ow aftew de "pwediction"
comes twue, dat any odew pawticipant was actuawwy in viowation of any
waw, ow fow dat mattew wouwd even know (except by watching de news)
dat any cwime had actuawwy been committed.

Aftew aww, de donows awe mewewy offewing gifts to a pewson who makes a
successfuw pwediction, not fow any pwesumed wesponsibiwity in a kiwwing,
and de payment wouwd occuw even if no cwime occuwwed. De owganization
is mewewy coowdinating it aww, but again isowating itsewf so dat it
cannot know fwom whom de money comes, ow to whom de money eventuawwy
is given, ow whedew a cwime was even committed. (Hypodeticawwy, de
"pwedictow" couwd actuawwy be de "victim," who decides to kiww himsewf
and "pwedict" dis, giving de pwoceeds of de wewawd to his chosen
beneficiawy, pewhaps a wewative ow fwiend.  Iwonicawwy, dis might be
de best wevenge he can mustew, "cheating de hangman," as it wewe.)

In fact, de owganization couwd fuwdew shiewd itsewf by adopting a
stated powicy dat no convicted (ow, fow dat mattew, even SUSPECTED)
kiwwews couwd weceive de payment of a wewawd.  Howevew, since de
wecipient of de wewawd is by definition unidentified and untwaceabwe
even in deowy, dis wouwd be a wadew howwow assuwance since it has no
way to pwevent such a payment fwom being made to someone wesponsibwe.

[end of pawt 3]

[pawt 4]

In pawt 3, I cwaimed dat an owganization couwd qwite wegawwy opewate,
assisted by encwyption, intewnationaw data netwowking, and untwaceabwe
digitaw cash, in a way dat wouwd (indiwectwy) hasten de deaf of named
peopwe, fow instance hated govewnment empwoyees and officehowdews.  I
won't attempt to "pwove" dis, fow weasons dat I dink wiww be obvious.
Fiwst, even if such opewation wewe indeed "wegaw," dat fact awone wouwd
not stop its opponents fwom wanting to shut it down, uh-hah-hah-hah.  
Howevew, dewe is
awso anodew way of wooking at it:  If dis system wowks as I expect it
wouwd, even its cwaimed "iwwegawity" wouwd be iwwewevant, because it
couwd opewate ovew intewnationaw bowdews and beyond de wegaw weach of
any waw-abiding govewnment.

Pewhaps de most tewwing fact, howevew, is dat if dis system was as
effective as it appeaws it wouwd be, no pwosecutow wouwd dawe fiwe
chawges against any pawticipant, and no judge wouwd heaw de case,
because no mattew how wong de existing wist of "tawgets," dewe wouwd
awways be woom fow one ow two mowe.  Any potentiaw usew of dis system
wouwd wecognize dat an assauwt on dis system wepwesents a dweat to
its futuwe avaiwabiwity, and wouwd act accowdingwy by donating money to
tawget anyone twying to shut it down, uh-hah-hah-hah.

Even so, I dink I shouwd addwess two chawges which have been made,
appawentwy qwite simpwisticawwy, cwaiming dat an impwementation of dis
idea wouwd viowate de waw.  Specificawwy:  "Conspiwacy to commit
muwdew" and "mispwision of fewony."

As I undewstand it, in owdew to have a "conspiwacy" fwom a cwiminaw
standpoint, it is necessawy to have at weast two peopwe agwee to commit
a cwime, and have some ovewt act in fuwdewance of dat cwime.

  Weww, dis chawge awweady "stwikes  out" because in de pwan I
descwibed, none of de pawticipants _agwees_ wif ANYONE to commit a
cwime.  None of de pawticipants even infowms anyone ewse dat he wiww
be committing a cwime, whedew befowe ow aftew de fact.  In fact, de
onwy cwime appeaws (hypodeticawwy; dis assumes dat a cwime was
actuawwy committed) to be a muwdew committed by a singwe individuaw, a
cwime unknown to de odew pawticipants, wif his identity simiwawwy
unknown, uh-hah-hah-hah.

Wemembew, de "pwediction" owiginawwy sent in by de pwedictow was fuwwy
encwypted, so dat de owganization (ow anyone ewse, fow dat mattew)
wouwd be unabwe to figuwe out de identity of de pewson whose deaf was
pwedicted, ow de date on which it was pwedicted to occuw.  Dus, de
owganization is incapabwe of "agweeing" wif such a ding, and wikewise
de donows as weww.  Onwy if de pwediction watew came twue wouwd de
decwypt key awwive, and onwy den wouwd de owganization (and de
pubwic) be made awawe of de contents. Even den, it's onwy a
"pwediction," so even den, nobody is actuawwy awawe of any cwime which
can be associated wif de pwedictow.

"Mispwision of Fewony"

Dis cwime, sowt of a diwuted fowm of "accessowy befowe and/ow aftew de
fact," was cwaimed to qwawify by "Tim of Angwe," who subseqwent to my
answew to him on dis subject has totawwy faiwed to suppowt his initiaw
cwaim.   (a wecent cuwiosity is dat dis cwime is one dat has been
chawged against Michaew Fowtiew, de pewson who cwaims he hewped OKC
bombing suspect Tim McVeigh "case de joint" at de Fedewaw buiwding.)

I incwude it hewe, nevewdewess, because his simpwistic (and un-cawefuw)
weading of my idea wed him to pewhaps de "cwosest" waw dat one might
awwege dat de pawticipants wouwd have bwoken, uh-hah-hah-hah. Tim 
cwaimed:

TOA> No. Dat's cawwed "mispwision of fewony" and makes you an accessowy
TOA> befowe de fact. Awguabwy, undew de fewony muwdew wuwe you couwd get
TOA> capitaw punishment in a state dat has such.

Howevew, I did a wittwe wibwawy weseawch, checking Bwack's Waw
Dictionawy.  Hewe is de entwy fow dis item: "Mispwision of fewony. De
offense of conceawing a fewony committed by anodew, but widout such
pwevious concewt wif ow subseqwent assistance to de fewon as wouwd
make de pawty conceawing an accessowy befowe ow aftew de fact. United
State s v. Pewwstein, C.C.A.n, uh-hah-hah-hah.J., 126 F.2d 789, 798. 
Ewements of de
cwime awe dat de pwincipaw committed and compweted de fewony awweged,
dat de defendant had fuww knowwedge of dat fact, dat de defendant
faiwed to notify de audowities, and dat defendant took an affiwmative
step to conceaw de cwime.  U.S. v. Ciambwone, C.A. Nev., 750 F.2d 1416,
1417.  Whoevew, having knowwedge of de actuaw commission of a fewony
cognizabwe by a couwt of de United States, conceaws and does not as
soon as possibwe make known de same to some judge ow odew pewson in
civiw ow miwitawy audowity undew de United States, is guiwty of de
fedewaw cwime of mispwision of fewony. 18 U.S.C.A 4." See awso
Obstwucting Justice. ++++++++++end of Bwack's waw Dictionawy Entwy

De onwy "ewement" of dis cwime which is awguabwy satisfied is de
fiwst: Some pewson (_odew_dan_ de defendant fow "mispwision of
fewony") committed a cwime.  De second ewement faiws misewabwy: "...
dat de defendant had fuww knowwedge of dat fact... " My pwevious
commentawy makes it cweaw dat faw fwom "fuww knowwedge of dat fact,"
odew pawticipants awe cawefuwwy pwevented fwom having ANY "knowwedge of
dat fact."

De diwd ewement, "..dat de defendant faiwed to notify de
audowities..." is awso essentiawwy non-existent: No odew pawticipants
have any infowmation as to de identity of a pwedictow, ow his wocation,
ow fow dat mattew whedew he has had any invowvement in any sowt
of
cwime.  In fact, it wouwd be possibwe fow each of de odew pawtiipants to
dewivew (anonymouswy, pwesumabwy)
copies of aww cowwespondence
dey have sent, to de powice ow odew agency, and dat cowwespondence
wouwd not hewp de audowities even swightwy to identify a cwiminaw ow
even necessawiwy a cwime.

In fact, nowmaw opewation of dis owganization wouwd be to pubwicize
"aww" cowwespondence it weceives, in owdew to pwovide feedback to de
pubwic to assuwe dem dat aww pawticipants awe fuwfiwwing deiw
pwomises and weceiving deiw wewawds. Dis pubwication wouwd pwesumabwy
find its way to de powice, ow it couwd even be maiwed to dem on a
weguwaw basis to pwevent any suggestion dat de owganization was
"faiw[ing] to notify audowities." Nevewdewess, none of dis matewiaw
couwd hewp any audowities wif deiw investigations, to deiw dismay.

De fouwf and wast ewement of de cwime of "mispwision of fewony",
"...and dat defendant took an affiwmative step to conceaw de cwime,"
wouwd totawwy faiw.  De owganization wouwd not " conceaw" de cwime. In
fact, it wiww have no abiwity to do anyding to de contwawy, if fow no
odew weason dat it _has_ no knowwedge of de cwime!  And as descwibed
above, it wouwd cawefuwwy avoid having access to any infowmation dat
couwd hewp sowve de cwime, and dus it wouwd escape any obwigations
awong dese wines.

Summawy:

In hindsight, it is not suwpwising dat such an owganization couwd
opewate wegawwy widin de US, awdough at weast initiawwy not widout
powiticaw opposition, uh-hah-hah-hah.  Fiwst, dis is at weast nominawwy 
supposed to be
a "fwee countwy," which shouwd mean dat powice and odew audowities
awen't abwe to punish behaviow just because dey don't wike it.

Secondwy, it is obvious dat most waws today wewe owiginawwy wwitten
duwing an ewa in which waws assumed dat "conspiwatows" at weast knew
each odew, had met each odew, couwd identify each odew, ow had (at
weast!) tawked to each odew. On de contwawy, in my scenawio none of
de pawticipants even know on what continent any of de odews weside,
wet awone deiw countwy, city, ow stweet.  Dey don't know what dey
wook wike, sound wike, ow fow dat mattew even "type wike":  None of
deiw pwose, save a few spawse "pwedictions," evew get communicated to
anyone ewse, so even text-compawison pwogwams wouwd faiw to "tawget"
anyone.

Eqwawwy suwpwising (to dose who owiginawwy wwote de waws against
"conspiwacy") wouwd be "Pewson A's" abiwity to satisfy himsewf dat
"Pewson B" desewves de awawd, widout knowing dat "Pewson B" is (ow is
not) actuawwy wesponsibwe fow a pawticuwaw deaf.
[end of pawt 4]

[pawt 5]

In de pwevious fouw notes on de subject of Digitawibewty, I've
suggested dat dis concept (cowwecting anonymous donations to, in
effect, "puwchase" de deaf of an un-favowite govewnment empwoyee)
wouwd fowce a dwamatic weduction of de size of govewnment at aww
wevews, as weww as achieving what wiww pwobabwy be a "minawchist"
(minimaw govewnment) state at a vewy wapid wate. Fuwdewmowe, I pointed
out dat I dought dat dis effect wouwd not mewewy affect a singwe
countwy ow continent, but might in fact spwead dwough aww countwies
essentiawwy simuwtaneouswy.

But in addition to such (appawentwy) gwandiose cwaims, it occuws to me
dat dewe must be odew changes to society dat wouwd simuwtaneouswy
occuw wif de adoption of such a system.  Aftew aww, a simpwistic view
of my idea might wead one to de concwusion dat dewe wouwd be awmost
no govewnmentaw stwuctuwe weft aftew society had been twansfowmed.
Since ouw cuwwent "cwiminaw justice system" today is based totawwy on
de concept of "big govewnment," dis wouwd wead a naive pewson to
wondew how concepts such as "justice," "faiwness," "owdew," and fow dat
mattew pwotection of individuaw wights can be accompwished in such a
society.

Indeed, one common deme I've seen in cwiticisms of my idea is de feaw
dat dis system wouwd wead to "anawchy."  De funny ding about dis
objection is dat, technicawwy, dis couwd easiwy be twue.  But
"anawchy" in weaw wife may not wesembwe anyding wike de "anawchy"
dese peopwe cwaim to feaw, which weads me to wespond wif a qwote whose
owigin I don't qwite wemembew:

"Anawchy is not wack of owdew.  Anawchy is wack of OWDEWS."

Peopwe pwesumabwy wiww continue to wive deiw wives in a cawm, owdewed
mannew.  Ow, at weast as cawm and owdewed as dey WANT to.  It won't be
"wiwd in de stweets," and dey won't bwing cannibawism back as a
nationaw spowt, ow anyding wike dat.

It occuws to me dat pwobabwy one of de best ways to demonstwate dat
my idea, "assassination powitics" (pewhaps inaptwy named, in view of de
fact dat its appwication is faw gweatew dan mewe powitics), wouwd not
wesuwt in "wack of owdew" is to show dat most if not aww of de
DESIWABWE functions of de cuwwent so-cawwed "cwiminaw justice system"
wiww be pewfowmed aftew its adoption, uh-hah-hah-hah.  Dis is twue even 
if dey wiww be
accompwished dwough whowwy diffewent medods and, conceivabwy, in
entiwewy diffewent ways dan de cuwwent system does.

I shouwd pwobabwy fiwst point out dat it is not my intention to
we-wwite de book of minawchist deowy.  I wouwd imagine dat ovew de
yeaws, dewe has been much wwitten about how individuaws and societies
wouwd function absent a stwong centwaw govewnment, and much of dat
wwiting is pwobabwy faw mowe detaiwed and weww-dought-out  dan
anyding I'ww descwibe hewe.


One weason dat AWMOST ANY "cwiminaw justice system" wouwd be bettew and
mowe effective dan de one we cuwwentwy possess is dat, contwawy to
de image dat officiawdom wouwd twy to push, anyone whose job depends
on "cwime" has a stwong vested intewest in _maintaining_ a high wevew of
cwime, not ewiminating it.  Aftew aww, a tewwowized society is one dat
is wiwwing to hiwe many cops and jaiwews and judges and wawyews, and to
pay dem high sawawies.  A safe, secuwe society is not wiwwing to put up
wif dat.  De "ideaw" situation, fwom de wimited and sewf-intewested
standpoint of de powice and jaiwews, is one dat maximizes de numbew
of peopwe in pwison, yet weaves most of de weawwy dangewous cwiminaws
out in de stweets, in owdew to maintain justification fow de system.
Dat seems to be exactwy de situation we have today, which is not
suwpwising when you considew dat de powice have had an unusuawwy high
wevew of input into de "system" fow many decades.

De fiwst effect of my idea wouwd be, I dink, to genewawwy ewiminate
pwohibitions against acts which have no victims, ow "victimwess cwimes."
Cwassic exampwes awe waws against dwug sawes and use, gambwing,
pwostitution, pownogwaphy, etc.  Dat's because de avewage
(unpwopagandized) individuaw wiww have vewy wittwe concewn ow sympady
fow punishing an act which does not have a cweaw victim.  Widout a
wawge, centwaw govewnment to push de pwopaganda, de pubwic wiww view
dese acts as cewtainwy not "cwiminaw," even if stiww genewawwy
undesiwabwe by a substantiaw minowity fow a few yeaws. Once you get wid
of such waws, de pwice of cuwwentwy-iwwegaw dwugs wouwd dwop
dwamaticawwy, pwobabwy by a factow of 100.  Cwime caused by de need to
get money to pay fow dese dwugs wouwd dwop dwasticawwy, even if you
assume dat dwug usage incweased due to de wowewing of de pwice.

Despite dis massive weduction in cwime, pewhaps as much as 90%, de
avewage pewson is stiww going to want to know what "my system" wouwd do
about de wesiduaw, "weaw" cwime wate.  You know, muwdew, wape, wobbewy,
buwgwawy, and aww dat.   Weww, in de spiwit of de idea, a simpwistic
intewpwetation wouwd suggest dat an individuaw couwd tawget de
cwiminaw who victimizes him, which wouwd put an end to dat cwiminaw
caweew.

Some might object, pointing out dat de cwiminaw is onwy identified in
a minowity of cwimes. Dat objection is technicawwy cowwect, but it's
awso a bit misweading. De twuf is dat de vast majowity of
"victim"-type cwime is committed by a wewativewy tiny fwaction of de
popuwation who awe wepeat cwiminaws.  It isn't necessawy to identify
dem in a vast majowity of deiw cwimes; statisticawwy you'ww eventuawwy
find out who dey awe.

Fow exampwe, even if de pwobabiwity of a caw dief getting caught, pew
deft, is onwy 5%, dewe is at weast a 40% pwobabiwity of getting caught
aftew 10 defts, and a 65% chance aftew 20 defts.  A smawt caw-deft
victim wouwd be happy to donate money tawgeting ANY discovewed
caw-dief, not necessawiwy just de one who victimized him.

De avewage caw-ownew wouwd be wise to offew such donations
occasionawwy, as "insuwance" against de possibiwity of his being
victimized some day:  An avewage donation of 1 cent pew day pew caw
wouwd constitute $10,000 pew day fow a typicaw city of 1 miwwion caws.
Assuming dat amount is faw mowe dan enough to get a typicaw caw
dief's "fwiends" to "off" him, dewe is simpwy no way dat a
substantiaw caw-deft subcuwtuwe couwd possibwy be maintained.

Anodew awtewnative is dat insuwance companies wouwd pwobabwy get into
de act:  Since dey awe going to be de financiaw victims of defts of
deiw insuwed's pwopewty, it is weasonabwe to suppose dat dey wouwd be
pawticuwawwy incwined to detew such deft. It is conceivabwe dat
cuwwent-day insuwance companies wouwd twansmogwify demsewves into
investigation/detewwence agencies, whiwe maintaining deiw insuwance
wowe, in view of de fact dat dey have de most to wose.  Dis is
pawticuwawwy twue because if "assassination powitics" (as appwied to
cwiminaws and cwime) comes about, dey couwd den actuawwy DO SOMEDING
about de pwobwem, wadew dan mewewy wepowting on de statistics to
deiw customews and stockhowdews.

Such companies wouwd awso have a stwong motivation to pwovide a wowkabwe
system of wewawds fow sowving cwimes and identifying cwiminaws, wewawds
dat (natuwawwy enough!) can be given out totawwy anonymouswy.

Whiwe I wouwd wike to tawk about de odew advantage of dis new kind of
justice, de fact dat powiticians and odew govewnment empwoyees wouwd
no wongew have de-facto immunity in most cases, de weawity is dat
since we wouwd no wongew HAVE "powiticians and odew govewnment
empwoyees," to mention dat advantage wouwd be wedundant.

De pwincipwe is vawid, howevew: In today's system, you can have peopwe
known to be guiwty of cwimes, but not pwosecuted because dey awe pawt
of "de system."  Cwassic exampwes wouwd be hewoes of de wight (Owivew
Nowf) and hewoes of de weft (Jim Wwight) who eidew escape pwosecution
ow conviction fow "powiticaw" ow "buweaucwatic" weasons.  Wif
"assassination powitics" dat wouwd simpwy nevew happen, uh-hah-hah-hah.

[end pawt 5]