From: Bradley Ward Allen <ulmo@Q.Net>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 12:33:06 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Why is cryptoanarchy irreversible?
In-Reply-To: <v02140b0eaea81512961e@[192.0.2.1]>
Message-ID: <3hlocce3ad.fsf@Q.Net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> Throwing people in prison for life for using crypto is something that is
> certainly _possible_, though I rather doubt taxpayers will be keen on
> paying for this. [...]

What you say may only be true if the taxpayers see crypto the way many
innovative people see it today (i.e. intrinsicly useful, nearly
totally necessary).  Right now, I think that a lot of people don't
even know what cryptography is for; worse yet, I wonder how many
people currently are *afraid* to use cryptography for fear of being
marked odd, dangerous, etc.?

For example, many people I know refuse to implement PGP on their
systems to decode my emails to them, when the topics are confidential
in nature (although lightly to moderately so; I don't get highly
frizzled when I can't encrypt it, it just would seem appropriate *to*
encrypt it in these cases, not one of my "nearly totally necessary"
needs above).  They never pinpoint why.  It's one of those things
where I think they're afraid to admit to me that they are afraid to
use it, although I can't quite be sure at this time.  These tend to be
people who have some light to medium reasons to use it -- a law
student; a computer programmer who works arbitrating disputes at his
job; a business owner who administers quite a few programmers,
projects, and communications systems, as well as sales deals,
conspiring to steal work from people (that he knows or doesn't know)
and sell it, etc. (and uses scheduled recreational substances on the
side to a degree not unusual for his position) -- he even specifically
acknowledged that using encryption programs makes him fear that he is
opened up to litigation.

Anyway, regardless of their actual positions on usage of encryption
today, I think it's potential that not all of the people avoiding PGP
are of the "but it's too hard to use" variety.

So, just how many people would protest the persecution of users of
encryption, if such users are labeled, oh you know, evil this and evil
that (some of which may be true, much of which may be false):
 * Robber
 * Terrorist
 * Rapist
 * Kidnapper
?  Many people might not really want to risk the above, to guard in
favor of the below:
 * Laywer
 * Banker
 * Gay person
 * Person sueing someone else for something that someone else did
 * Various monetary transactions
 * Spaceless information collaboration (work, play, society, etc.)
 * Prostitutes & Drug Dealers

Well, ok, my image of what is legitimate probably is a bit blurred in
the view of others' minds ;) but the point goes to show just how
difficult it is to draw the line in such a way *TODAY* that the mass
populace will say "oh yeah we need crypto, government go to hell".

However, after a number of years (the amount of which is not simple to
determine but which many estimates can be made -- widespread SSL
availability, etc. etc.), if people become familiar with crypto and
its uses, or even if they are totally unfamiliar with it and use it
constantly and someone points out that its outlaw would disallow them
from some activity they personally regard dear (whatever that may be;
let me imagine: home shopping; talking to their lawyer; logging into
their ISP; doing their work at home; doing their international work at
all; whatever, the application of cryptography has been so limited
that often we forget how useful it is!  oh e.g., doing collaborative
work on their computer; merely using a special networked OS that may
be ubiquitous in the future), *then* these same people may be bent
more towards protesting government outlaw of crypto.

I'm not quite 100% sold that cryptoanarchy is inevitable, although I'm
certainly not convinced the other way either.  In any event, stopping
cryptography will be extremely difficult, since a lot of people who
really have no business fucking with the government like me will
suddenly come out of the woodwork to defend cryptography with a
vengeance because of the number of applications that we personally
find dear (my favorite: middle and lower class (and of all races,
etc. etc.) people having increased capabilities that only more monied
people could normally afford without as much cryptography, meaning
that everyone isn't as locked into their classes as would be without
widespread cryptography, meaning (hopefully) less discrimination &
strife, and more quality of life); just how that battle turns out may
be never be known (the most likely scenereo in my opinion, and one I
hope for).

[Above are opinions based on personal experiences; by posting I intend
to elicit responses and ultimate change, if appropriate.]

[P.S. where do I get PGP 2.7.* from?]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQEVAwUBMoOYvZxWhFYc6x9VAQEu2Qf9HJ1C0QzB4V8xg7hK6+RQHR86MDwV3D69
Ok2WzZVgVh5QWjvTr0r0L4zBmXjIf0gdjOUWfG/lzbdtBqEOuB5IWROuSOwlfirB
Sdw91UoqbwswoC82gQUvyyh2fiKt6TYaDYTLm10S+Sp28xS1pWTfCromKrInoVa2
MBB3MyZS+J8T/buV4FxzBZngenU3TF/Mt7EymzQXlYaARMA8OtUZ0e66Kf+smIy8
eiaPaBd8aq3OYd7H2OF14I4clqGGCUkqD+iDrpnrzvcEiTr69ypzbFqBbACkpGbf
1WtLOso8Uwx/5bFH+IAPwLerBkTAxfEeDQXq+QrXMqSfff2UyUZ5uw==
=hxpz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----