Eric Hughes wrote:
2001 September 12 An Open Letter on Privacy and Anonymity
It's a well written letter, unquestionably. But there's a problem. While the title of the letter refers to privacy and anonymity, these terms are hardly used in the body. Privacy is referred to only in the first paragraph were Eric introduces himself as a founder of the cypherpunks, a privacy organization. And anonymity is never mentioned at all! Any essay which purports to address a topic ought to mention it, don't you think? What if he had titled it, an open letter on pedophilia and child abuse? Would the arguments in the letter then automatically mean that we should support those activities? Mostly the letter contains calls for the preservation of liberty. Unfortunately, every politician in the United States, while voting for the most Draconian martial law curfews ever seen, would endorse each paragraph in Eric's message. Without some specifics tying these calls for liberty to concrete policy questions, the letter is not as strong as it should be.
We need not curtail our liberty in order to save it. The message is seductive that we may more effectively fight for liberty if we limit our freedoms for a time whose end has yet to be announced.
How broadly do we take this? What about the elimination of curbside baggage checkins at airports? Is this a curtailment of our liberty? Is it a sign that we have diminished ourselves? Or is it a reasonable precaution in the face of terrorist hijackings? The letter from Sean Hastings suffered from the same vagueness:
Do not let your natural reactions of fear or anger help ANYONE to further their short term political goals, or impose any "temporary" measures.
No "temporary" measures? They shouldn't have banned flights on Tuesday? Why not, exactly? Seemed like a wise precaution to most people. And no furthering of short-term political goals? The politicians have been wanting to dip into the social security "lockbox" for months. Now they can. Is this wrong? Isn't it just a matter of changing priorities which everyone will support? Why are we seeing such vague generalities from obviously talented writers? Let's see people go to the heart of the issue. If you want to argue for privacy and anonymity, make the case! The fact that no one will come out and make an argument for these technologies suggests that it is because they are afraid that any argument will be too weak to stand. Eric Hughes, take on this challenge. Write an essay, not in defense of liberty, but in defense of privacy and anonymity, as you promised in your title. And do it at a time when some of the best leads towards tracing these attackers are possible exactly because of a lack of privacy and anonymity. Tell us why the world would be a better place if it were impossible to trace these men. It's not an impossible argument. But it's not easy, either, like supporting freedom. Let's see it done, by someone as talented as you.