From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 07:10:55 +0800
To: aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back)
Subject: Re: crypto anarchy vs AP
In-Reply-To: <199609221810.TAA00172@server.test.net>
Message-ID: <199609261906.OAA00239@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


Mr. Beck said:
> Been reading the AP thread, and thought I'd donate some of my views.

> the Internet.  You'd just cause the government to panic, and this
> would have negative effects, it would take ages for them to calm down,
> and the laws they'd pass in the mean time would mean a near certainty
> of mandatory GAK as a condition to switching the Internet back on.
> (Before someone takes me to task for the impossibility of switching
> the Internet off, it all depends on the level of government panic.
> More specifically perhaps they would disconnect key backbones, and
> ISPs briefly while they rushed into effect a few presidential decrees
> outlawing non GAKed crypto, anonymous ecash, remailers, PGP, DC-nets,
> etc.)

     This would be cutting their own throats. There is SO much commercial
and government traffic going across "The Net" that many businesses would 
scream bloody murder, and the government would have MASSIVE trouble with 
it's agenda.

> Libertarian governments, if they come, I think will be more easily,
> and more likely achieved via non-violent means.  I think it will be a
> much more gradual process, and that government power will just be
> gradually eroded as international businesses gain power, and borders
> become more open, trade more free, as travel becomes cheaper, and
> moving to another country becomes less of a hassle.  Telecommuting,

     A very nice pipe dream. You sir have entirely too much faith in
humanity. 

> Governments are currently flailing around trying to prolong the
> inevitable.  The fall out from this is beginning to annoy some people.
> If it annoys enough people soon enough that they vote in a Libertarian
> candidate for president in the next 20 years, crypto anarchy, and
> libertarian governments could be reached more quickly.  I'm not sure
> it will ever get that far though, because the more votes the
> libertarians get over the following years, the closer we get to
> libertarian anyway, because the government has to start adopting their
> policies to get the votes back.  (Much like the green movement, which
> once it started getting significant votes, and media attention, was
> pandered to by politicians of all parties.  They're all green now:-)

     They are TALKING green, but their actions aren't. This shows that
the "libertarianization" of the ruling party would be in talk only.
Unfortunately people vote THEIR pockets, regardless of why their pockets are
the way they are. They vote their fears as well. They will almost always
vote for politicos who claim "anti-crime" (more like "more-prisons") and
"anti-drug" (read "more inner city youth inprisoned"), and soon 
"anti-crypto" (which will be based on 4-horsemen hysteria). People,
being for the most part stupid and short sighted, will vote away thier 
rights, just as they have done for the last 200 years. 

     No, I am not the LEAST BIT fatalist about this. I am trying to 
fight it with the limited resources I have, but...


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com