From: nobody@replay.com (Name Withheld by Request)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 16:47:11 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Reuters article: "Unstoppable Internet will defy controls"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970120151123.23877M-100000@well.com>
Message-ID: <199701280036.BAA06228@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>More broadly, modern governments rely on their ability to control
>information and money to maintain control over their citizens.

>But does the Net mean we no longer need government in its present form? 

The German law professor Alexander Rossnagel has published an article
titled "Globale Datennetze: Ohnmacht des Staates - Selbstschutz der
Buerger" (global networks: state's impotence, citizens'
self-protection) in Zeitschrift fuer Rechtspolitik 1997, p. 26 ff.

He describes that decentral networks are difficult to control, and
anonymizers, encryption and steganography can be used to defy
surveillance.  "[The state] can neither enforce matters of public
interest, nor offer protection to its citizens", including protection
of privacy and legally protected secrets.  The state cannot
effectively face law violations: "If it somewhere suppresses
information, it will be 'mirrored' by many other servers world-wide.
If it blocks communication lines, the message will find a way around.
Sattelite transmission also renders the question of location almost
irrelevant.  Theresa Orlowski was denied a license for her porn
channel here.  Now she is broadcasting from Britain.  In cyberspace,
functions of social relevance, such as protection of minors, can no
longer be fulfilled by the state.  They are transferred to the parents
exclusively."

"The state can only interevene where the immaterial world of the
network touches the physical world: It can arrest criminals, seize
devices and data storage, when these physically are in its control.
It can enforce adherance to its laws where it physically can exersize
its power.  But in the incorporeal world of the network, to a large
extend it is powerless.  All these examples indicate a new fact: The
networks constitute a new incorporeal social space.  Increasingly more
social contacts, economic and legal exchanges are being transferred to
it.  In it, conditions are different from in the social relationships
of the physical world.  In this new world, the state has no means of
coercion, no monopoly of power, and no sovereignty."

"Law to be enforced requires power.  The democratic constitutional
state depends on sovereignty and obediency to laws.  Only with these
it can universally enforce democratic decisions and protect the
citizens' basic rights from violations by third parties.  To guarantee
this is the fundamental reason for the modern state to exist.  Its
protective mission continues to apply.  However, it has expanded with
the civilisatoric development.  With Hobbes, the focus was on the
procetion of life and limb, with Locke the protection of freedom and
property were added, and in this century, facing new threats, the
protection of privacy.  [... The states'] sovereignty is based on the
authority to exclusively exercise physical power in [their territory].
This sovereignty has limits in the immaterial space of global
networks.  But when the citizen no longer receives the state's
protection in the special sphere of the networks and the state can no
more enforce matters of public interest there, then its basic
legitimation in so far is in danger.  According to Thomas Hobbes, 'the
citizen's obligation to the sovereign can ... only last as long as he
is capable of protecting the citizens'."  But that would also endanger
democracy and the constitional state.

Stating that the normative strategy at large is obsolete, the author
proposes new solotions: "When the democratic constitutional state can
no longer reliably protect its citizens in the new social space of the
networks, in compensation it must enable them to protect themselves."
Information and communications technology offers various means of
protection:

* encryption and steganography
* digital signatures
* untraceable pseudonyms
* certified electronic mail
* ecash
* software agents
* connectivity management programs [whatever that is...]
* cellular phones without location data
* PICS
* secure portable user-controlled devices that support these measures

"Some of these measures - for example the encryption program PGP - can
be used without any advance concession.  The state only has to abstain
from impeding regulations.  Others - such as digital signatures -
depend on an infrastructure that allows the individual to use these
protective measures.  The citizen of information society still depends
on infrastructural prerequsites.  But there is a fundamental
difference in whether the individual can decide about using
self-controlled protective measures himself, or the state or an other
large organization offers protection that he cannot influence."

"In order to protect and preserve the /old/ goals of freedom and
self-determination in the /new/ social space of the networks, law
must permit and support /new/ technologies."

The article ends with the author's vision of a 'civil information
society' as a free democratic society where basic rights are
guaranteed by technology. "In this information society, the state has
a limited, but fundamental role. [...] it creates a framework for the
citizens to protect themselves. Thus they are enabled to freely inform
themselves, solve conflicts in free self-organization, and negotiate
and practice mutual security without depending on a big brother."