From: Doug Barnes <cman@c2.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 21:49:45 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Anon
In-Reply-To: <199611281629.LAA21815@homeport.org>
Message-ID: <199611290549.VAA09766@atropos.c2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> Hal Finney wrote:
> | As I mentioned a couple of days ago, science fiction writer David Brin
> | has an argument against not only anonymity, but _privacy_ as well.
> | Where cypherpunks tend to think of privacy as both beneficial and
> | inevitable, Brin sees it as harmful and doomed.  He has an article in
> | the December 1996 issue of Wired discussing his ideas.
> | 
> | BTW cypherpunk Doug Barnes is also quoted several times in the long
> | article in that issue by Neal Stephenson (Snow Crash, The Diamond Age)
> | about the undersea cables that carry most transnational information
> | traffic.
> | 
> | Hal
> | 
> 
> 

Our December Wired has yet to put in its appearance, so I haven't
had a chance to read it yet, except for a quick scan of Neal's
article (at Fry's) to make sure the intrepid editors at Wired hadn't 
screwed up my quotes. I did, however, review some notes on this subject 
that David Brin gave to Steve Jackson, back when Steve and I were 
working on IO.COM a couple years ago. 

There are many arguments against David's position; let's grant the
possibility of near-perfect surveilance if it has popular support
(which is pretty dubious, but has been addressed by others), and
see what arguments remain:

1) I would conjecture that popular approval would make or break
   this kind of system. It's amazing what kind of spontaneous civil
   disobedience can spring up once there's a critical mass of 
   distaste for something like this.

   (Taiwan story warning...) This reminds me of the pirate cable
   TV wars, which hit their peak during my stay there -- essentially,
   the government had outlawed cable TV altogether, mostly because
   they controlled most of the existing media outlets, and didn't
   believe the citizen-units needed more than what they had. Various
   entrepreneurs began wiring Taipei for cable -- sloppy, ad-hoc
   cable lays that were strung from building to building. The gov't
   would come and cut the cables; new cables would be laid. People
   paid their cable bills, but could never quite manage to identify
   the cable installer when the government came around asking. 
   Programming consisted of a van with a bunch of VCRs and a small
   satellite dish, that would plug into the network at various places.
   It go to the point where in some areas there was so much cable, it
   was tricky to figure out which were the old ones and which were
   the new. Eventually, the government gave up and licensed some
   cable operators.

   One could very much see this sort of thing working in reverse.

2) At the moment in this country, we're seeing civil liberties in
   general being rolled back because right now most people are 
   more afraid of crime that they're afraid of the government. This
   was not always the case, and it's unlikely to remain the case.
   We're essentially losing these liberties because people have MTV-
   attention spans, the media is complacent, and, frankly, the
   government hasn't done enough awful things recently enough, to 
   enough different kinds of people to provoke general disquiet. 

   Give it time, and a few more Wacos.

3) I would argue that perfect surveilance lives in the same realm
   of Platonic ideals as "chairness" and "perfect security."  So
   there are going to be some exceptions, and some flaws.

   Now, given this less-than-perfect surveilance state, that is, 
   surveilance is easier than privacy; a few people can have some
   privacy, but it's really expensive and requires spending some
   multiple of what opponents spend on surveilance (this is the
   opposite of how things are now, but humor me.) Who is going to
   have this privacy? What are they going to do with it? What is
   the public reaction going to be to the abuses that grow out
   of this? My guess is that large governments and large corporations
   will have this privacy (a matter of national security, etc.)
   and will eventually succumb to temptation and use it to perpetrate 
   various nasty things on the general populace while keeping 
   themselves in power.

   Full knowledge != full wisdom. Also, in time, all monopolists get
   complacent and stupid.

4) Assuming that enough people get riled up, see #1. If the 
   state of affairs can be reversed, folks will try to reverse it;
   if not, it's been nice knowing you, citizen-units.

Contrast this to what happens against a backdrop of privacy; it's
possible for much smaller entities to take larger entities (such
as governments or large corporations) by surprise, to outmaneuver
them, swarm over them, and pull them down. (I can't seem to
shake the image of primitive hunters going for a mastodon, here...)
It helps prevent the perpetuation of especially dense concentrations
of wealth & power, it allows markets to function properly, and 
enables folks to plot against tyrannical governments. 

In Brin's world, how does the little startup protect its technology
from Microsoft?

In Brin's world, how does a new political party campaign against the 
unscrupulous incumbents, who have access to the tiny bit of remaining 
privacy, while they have none?

In Brin's world, how does a Christian in Iran avoid that knock on
the door?

Some things to think about.

Doug

PS -- DO read Neal Stephenson's article in the same Wired; it's 
      a bit boosterish, but it's the funniest tract on fiber
      optic cable you'll ever read. It gives a good idea of
      where things are headed (deregulation, disintermediation 
      of cable laying services, cable as speculative investment
      as opposed to guaranteed utility, etc.). I'd argue things
      aren't headed that way as quickly as Neal indicates, but
      certainly where FLAG is landing, it's acting as a catalyst
      for change of this sort.

PPS -- Does anyone know why Fry's gets Wired _weeks_ before actual
       subscribers?