From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 16:47:02 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
In-Reply-To: <m0uDagf-00093GC@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960428234342.5923A-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:

[...]

> "Military technologies" only work effectively against a military target.  

While generally I agree with you, I believe Esper Sata, Gerald Bull and
Pablo Escobar might have more specific disagreements.

> Kill civilians and you just make other civilians angry.  At that point 
> they'll be look for a weapon that "military technologies" cannot effectively 
> oppose.  That weapon is already known to be possible.  

While strong cryptography is powerful, and secure communications
liberating, unplugging the phones would about cripple that 'weapon' for a
while.  Any group rebelling based only on high technology communication is
an extremely vulnerable group, both to widespread denial of service, and
more specific 'surgical' attacks.  (Motorola stock anyone?)

> Quite the contrary, I think that a "successful popular uprising" will 
> require only a very small investment in time and money, in which some of 
> they key players in government are targeted and the prospect exists for 
> easily and cheaply getting the rest.  At that point they will resign in
> droves.

Firstly, uprising, even kicking people out of power might take only a
small investment in time and money, but consolidating a new system (even a
decentralized one) will be extensively expensive and time consuming.

To the extent that a successful uprising depends on organizing the new
power structure, I can't see how a successful popular uprising can be
cheap.

In addition I believe the assumption that a few, even several official
deaths will cause mass resignations ignores history.  See e.g., Columbia,
South Africa, and any number of other examples.

[...]

> Government feeds on its own size; once government is dramatically reduced 
> below its current size, it will become even less able to resist further 
> contraction.  Probably few government employees realize this.

While I understand the point, I think that a slim efficient government is
much better able to resist "contraction."  The most effective covert
action/terrorist/political agitation groups have all been small and
closely held.  It's easier to control all aspects of operation and a
greater concentration can be put into internal security concerns as
government shrinks.  Obviously there is a critical mass, but I don't think
you will see the "runaway refrigerator" effect with government shrinkage.

> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"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
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com