From: blanc <blancw@cnw.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 20:53:56 -0800 (PST)
To: "'cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE: Fighting the cybercensor
Message-ID: <01BC0D5D.D7CD3200@king2-20.cnw.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	jim bell

[ on discussing AP on the cpunk list]:

Because it's on-topic, that's why.  Because it's not merely a list
concerning METHODS of encryption, it's also about the _reasons_ for using
encryption, as well as the _effects_ (both small-scale and large-scale) of
using encryption.
--

Well, you're right, this is probably a good place to discuss it, so all the 
NSA spooks will know what some of youall are up to.


[ why the Iraquis haven't thought of applying it themselves - to Saddam]:

As for why the ordinary Iraquis didn't think of it...  Or the ordinary
people of any or every country, as well.  Why didn't THEY think of it?
--

I was thinking the reason that most people don't think of applying AP is 
because they're normal.   It is not the first thought of a normal person to 
kill another human, just because they've been offended - even severely.  It 
takes an extraordinary circumstance to motivate one to such destruction, 
especially if there are a thousand armed troops supporting the object of 
the attempt.

But in fact I do think that many in Iraq (whoever they were) did consider 
it seriously and have attempted to get rid of Saddam.  I heard on a TV 
special that he has survived about 5 or so attempts on his life.   This 
means that not only was he not killed, but he didn't learn anything from it 
and it created no fear in him about continuing to rule as a dictator.   It 
probably was more discouraging to his enemies than himself.


[  on why the Mafia hasn't achieved a rational society by the use of AP]:

In fact, apparently, they function diametrically opposed to
the AP system.  A complete AP-like system is structured (via encryption,
etc) to totally avoid anybody having to trust anyone else. Each participant 
is kept honest mathematically.  Nobody can inform on anyone else, because
nobody knows anyone else's identity.
--

There are extraordinary times when people, even though they be of sound 
mind and body, are moved to band together and kill another person.   There 
are a few occurances in history that anyone can immediately think of as 
examples.   But this is in an *extra-ordinary* situation.   A society of 
people - where "society" indicates their desire to live in each other's 
company, associating openly and developing working relations - would not 
really be a "society", would not last as an association of people, if they 
were expecting extreme, destructive reactions from others in response to 
any degree of perceived insult from themselves.   Therefore, although I can 
appreciate the need to be able to deal with political tyrants by just 
killing them, and currently encryption and anonymity makes it possible to 
do this "blindly" without anyone knowing each other, I can't see where 
implementing this method of relating to others, in a system of daily 
operating procedures, would do better than to create an atmosphere of total 
paranoia and psychological breakdowns.

I think it is very important that individuals be able to defend themselves 
- from anyone.  It is unfortunate that citizen-units are not typically 
instructed in the methods of self-defense, nor especially allowed to 
practice it without "official authorization".   If we were better able to 
do this, the fact that anyone anywhere could immediately deal with threats 
to their existence would in itself be an impressive "deterrent", 
contributing to the general welfare and peace.

Be that as it may, although the capacities of encryption and the internet 
make anonymous AP possible, the drive of human intelligence is toward 
knowledge, towards knowing the reasons for things.  It would wish to know 
what is right or wrong, it  would wish to know how to be the most accurate, 
it would wish to know about cause and effect, it would wish to know how to 
be in command of itself, normally.    If someone does something "wrong" 
which makes another unhappy, normally they will wish to know what it was 
and how to correct it.   If every time someone made a mistake they got 
punished, without the opportunity to understand the error and without the 
opportunity to make corrections, they would be a psychological wreck.   If 
every time someone made mistake they got assassinated, not only would no 
one wish to do anything for fear of losing their lives, creating a 
"society" of timid sheep, there probably wouldn't be many people remaining 
to savor the triumph of being superior.

AP is just another form of war.   You can bet that if assassinations 
increased a hundred fold as a result of your method, not only "governments" 
but some very bright people would get together to figure out a defense 
against it, for they also would be "at risk".

    ..
Blanc