From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 10:43:36 +0800
To: liberty@gate.net (Jim Ray)
Subject: Re: Freedom and security
Message-ID: <m0uEflk-00093wC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 08:51 PM 4/30/96 -0700, CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher wrote:
>Jim Ray wrote
>
>> Freedom is already diminishing at an alarming pace.
>>That is why cypherpunks spread crypto, and why Libertarians like
>>me rant. Freedom does not increase through more laws.
>
>Nor does freedom increase through less laws or no laws. 

I disagree.  Plenty of laws do not increase freedom, nor leave it at its 
former level.  They decrease freedom. Moreover, they usually do it without 
increasing the level of "security" of the ordinary citizen.

> Freedom increases
>as respect and care for one another increases.  Meanwhile, since we do not
>live in utopia, all societies at a certain level of economic development
>and of a certain size of population require law and law enforcement to
>protect citizens from predators.

If all the government did was to "protect citizens from predators" the 
government would be dramatically smaller than it is today.


>The Internet is beyond the stage of small communities exercising informal
>social controls (peer pressure).  It's now a major industrial city and will
>develop law, law enforcement and government, whether anyone likes it or
>not,

Ya wanna play "chicken"?

> not least because the Community will always respond to crime by trying
>to protect itself. 

Which "community"?

> And the crime is already here. 

Does the amount of crime which is demonstrably on the Internet, today, 
actually justify the interest shown by government agencies?  Or, more 
likely, they are merely using whatever crime exists to foist regulations and 
control for their own hidden agenda?

> The idea that the
>Internet is not controlled is IMHO one of the biggest myths around.  It's
>like a large group of people are still living in some far-off utopian rural
>paradise.  Does anyone really doubt the extent of State control and power
>across the Net? 

To whatever extent that exists, it will be stopped.

> My point is that this is inevitable. 

I have different opinions about what is "inevitable."  But I won't get into 
that right now.

> The Internet is a
>mirror of the rest of the world, not a new form of society, and I fail to
>understand why anyone should be surprised that that is the case.

Maybe it really _IS_ a "new form of society"?  Maybe that's exactly why the 
government-and-control-types are terrified.  Let it alone a few more years 
and it'll come back and destroy the control they currently have.

> >.... laws only breed more laws, which always lead to
>>less freedom.
>
>I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that laws breed more laws
>nor that laws lead to less freedom.  I believe bad laws compromise freedom
>(eg CDA) while good laws protect freedom.

Could you be more specific?  And why is the government passing bad laws?  
Could it be that their goal is not more freedom, but is in fact less?  And 
why should you do anything to support the government that's passing those 
bad laws?


>>Good. Join us in spreading cryptography around, and security will
>>bloom (along with freedom).
>
>Cryptography enhances and protects privacy, which does not inevitably lead
>to greater security.  Security for the sender, yes, in that no one else can
>read the message, but security for the Community?  Doesnt that depend what
>the message said? 

I don't think it does.  Cumulatively, we're better off if everybody has 
unbreakable security, because it'll assist the ordinary citizen more than it 
would assist a hypothetical criminal.


> The technology itself is neutral.

But government is not neutral.

>  Child pornographers
>encrypt their hard drives so that law enforcement cannot gather crime
>evidence - that is certainly a state of greater security for the
>pornographer,

And less work for agents of the government to do.  That's what terrorizes them!


> but it does not improve our Community, and as child
>pornography increases, the law is by definition broken more and more, and
>so the Community becomes less free than before. 

Laws being broken does not equate to less freedom.  The presence of those 
laws is what produces less freedom.


> And that's not the tyranny
>of government but the tryanny of criminals.

I think the ordinary citizen has far more to fear from the government than 
the criminals.  For one thing, it is the actions of the government (by 
passing victimless-crime laws) which actually put a great deal of profit 
into crimes.   


>I do in fact support cryptography for personal security, not least because
>I can ensure that my messages are authenticated.  CyberAngels PGP public
>key will be up on our new website opening very soon.  I've had enough of
>people forging my email.


Well, then stop sending any.  Or get your head straight on this "freedom 
thing."  People will view you as being dangerous if you keep talking the way 
you have been.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.comJim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com