From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 14:02:42 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Government and Whom we Trust
Message-ID: <v03102804aff4b2ce22be@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




There are some striking similarities between the "certificate authority"
(CA) and PICS/RSACi/rating issues. Not really surprising, as they both
involve "certificates" of slightly different types.

The larger issue in both cases is that the government is interjecting
itself, or seeking to, in matters of trust and believability. It's as if
the government felt movie and restaurant reviewers needed to be licensed,
regulated, inspected, detected, refected, and maldicted.

The CA issue, which shows up in the UK "trusted third parties" proposal and
in various other European and American proposals, essentially rules out
independent, "anarchic" signature signers. If the UK form becomes law, for
example, one could not even _sign_ another's key or whatever without
automatically becoming subject to the law.

(Whether something like this will become law in the U.K, not to mention the
U.S., is unclear. But of course this is the plan being discussed.)

The "Web rating" proposal is somewhat similar, in that those who provide
PICS/RSACi ratings would be bound by certain laws.

Sounds reasonable, being bound by certain laws, right? To some it does.

Here's why they're wrong: signatures on keys and statements of ratings are
just OPINIONS or EXPRESSIONS OF BELIEF.

"I believe this is the key of Phil Zimmermann."

"I believe the material I saw at this Web site when I looked is suitable
for children under the age of 9."

"I believe Szechwan Garden has fine food."

"I believe "Contact" is a good movie."

"I believe that giving all your money to the Church of Scientology will
help you go clear."

All are opinions, however expressed. There is no government role in any of
these issues. Whether people are "misled" by stated opinions is not a
matter for governments in free societies to intervene and limit speech.

(Sure, there are a few fringe issues, such as variants of falsely shouting
"Fire!" in a crowded theater and the Usual Suspects when it comes to free
speech. But the Net is no different from other outlets when it comes to
even these fringe issues.)

In the cases we are so preoccupied with recently, the government is seeking
a role in establishing a hierarchy of true statements, a system for
determining who is making legitimate statements and who is not. The
government is seeking to be the arbiter of truth, telling us whom we can
trust.

All unaccepable, of course. On some very basic grounds.

Talk of compromise is terribly wrong.

--Tim May



There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."