I have changed the subject header (despite its destroying threading with the way my mailreader works) so that Perry et al can more easily filter this out. I have concluded that Assasination Politics, since it is a possible development of true anonymnity, etcetera, is a proper discussion topic for cypherpunks - while not cryptography in and of itself, it is a possible result of cryptography. From: IN%"frantz@netcom.com" 12-FEB-1996 03:24:07.29
Again, absolutely. Hell, I can't even devise a filter that will let me filter out Jim Bell's rants while letting me see his reasoned arguments on anonymous assassination. (I would love to have him address the Salman Rushdie issue, a man who is still alive despite a considerable announced price for his head. There appear to be limits to who can be subject to assassination for pay.)
Actually, that's an argument for non-misusage of Assasination Politics. If the person hides, there's not much one can do about it. But a hiding law enforcement agent can't be out violating people's rights. (I will mention that whether a right is violated or not is essentially a matter of the perceiver - under any system, whether governmental or not. All ethical arguments assume either some degree of common ground that can be argued from, or the finding of logical inconsistency). Those who do so via the net can be taken care of via the other mechanisms discussed here. It's just that the physical part is a possible net weakness. Moreover, just because _some_ rights-violaters (not that Rushdie was one) aren't killed doesn't mean that all of them wouldn't be. A system doesn't have to be 100% efficient to be effective. However, the Rushdie case does bring up one problem I have with Assasination Politics as currently constructed. While people are unlikely to patronize a general/non-discriminatory organization, a more particular but non-libertarian one is still possible. For instance, if the Christian Coalition put together an organization, anonymously, what would prevent them from offing everyone who was a major leader against them - such as a doctor researching new abortion techniques, or a geneticist (such as myself) doing gene therapy work they found offensive? The patrons would know that _they_ wouldn't be targeted after all... I would appreciate a response from Jim Bell on this subject. -Allen