-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
That being said let it be known that I consider the following as a "Cypherpunk victory."
1. Complete freedom of technology, particularly encryption technology, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ regulated only by market forces. This implies the lack of import/export restrictions, and a complete absence of projects designed to limit ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ technology, or to standardize it for nefarious ends like Clipper. ^^^^^^^^^^
I think you overgeneralize. No limits on toxic waste incinerators, low-mileage automobiles, unsafe medical devices, genetically tampered food, or nuclear reactors? "Market forces" in such cases positively encourage dangerous technology (e.g. incinerators are superficially cheap) or are marked by their inability to distinguish the good from the crap (e.g. medical devices). We agree about crypto, but not all tech is crypto. :) ======================================================================= Crim Tideson Privacy is its own justification. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBLpCIPqvOblMnt4MdAQEgRgP/XNNQ/T/RvLnd7Rhu8OxCNlXhez8Dqt0h mJfJ172h8QZr0TSr9jxOt6720Z5+lKGZJbP62I5OZEeufifwTXn1Q9Il1Sq4BEWA mUFbs1mu/v88xVReuNXie5e09R7cRa4cZ8W0aGQ2+ceCBTEvJ/z8Cqps93ZucL9j ZDtO93NM78k= =FcUP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous scripsit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
That being said let it be known that I consider the following as a "Cypherpunk victory."
1. Complete freedom of technology, particularly encryption technology, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ regulated only by market forces. This implies the lack of import/export restrictions, and a complete absence of projects designed to limit ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ technology, or to standardize it for nefarious ends like Clipper. ^^^^^^^^^^
I think you overgeneralize. No limits on toxic waste incinerators, low-mileage automobiles, unsafe medical devices, genetically tampered food, or nuclear reactors? "Market forces" in such cases positively encourage dangerous technology (e.g. incinerators are superficially cheap) or are markedby their inability to distinguish the good from the crap (e.g. medical devices).
It is you who have overgeneralized. No limits on technology certainly does not mean allowing low tech and poor incinerators to continue operating. The fact that low mileage cars still drive is a result of poor markets than anything else (baring colletables). How would you argue that some low mileage cars are the result of a no limitations on technology policy? Unsafe medical devices? I would say this is a problem with testing technology, not a lack of limitation on technological advance. Genetically tampered food? Why is this dangerous? Have any evidence? Most of the livestock/crops you eat today have been altered in one way or another, be it selective breeding, low tech botanical splicing, or genetic/hormonal therapy. You see this as a regression? You never make the distinction between regulation designed to promote and regulation designed to deter technological advance. Clipper is clearly designed to set a standard and defuse the market which has advanced strong cryptography. It is designed to WEAKEN technology, make it counter-productive to it's goal (in the case of cryptography, security against all attackers). What lack of regulation does this? Market forces are lathargic, sometimes they need a boost. I propose this boost be accomplished with motivators like tax breaks, market assisters and privatization. When Germany wanted to promote environmentally sound packaging and manufacture, they started a program called Gruun Punkt (The Green Point) They allow manufactures to place the green point sticker on their products provided they meet XYZ specifications. This is the way to promote technological advance, NOT by over regulation, centralization, collectivization and stagnation. The pattern of the administration crippling markets because it is afraid it cannot keep pace is obnoxious. If we were to all keep pace with the Federal Government, we'd all still be wearing loin cloths. Anyone who thinks the Federal Government is the driving force behind the majority of technological advancement (aside the space program and military hardware) needs to take a good look.
We agree about crypto, but not all tech is crypto. :)
I'm not even sure we agree about crypto, considering you don't seem to understand, or at least express the difference between Crypto regulation and emissions testing.
======================================================================= Crim Tideson Privacy is its own justification. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 [...]
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-uni- Dark -- 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Crim Tideson writes:
That being said let it be known that I consider the following as a "Cypherpunk victory."
1. Complete freedom of technology, particularly encryption technology, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ regulated only by market forces. This implies the lack of import/export restrictions, and a complete absence of projects designed to limit ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ technology, or to standardize it for nefarious ends like Clipper. ^^^^^^^^^^
I think you overgeneralize. No limits on toxic waste incinerators, low-mileage automobiles, unsafe medical devices, genetically tampered food, or nuclear reactors? "Market forces" in such cases positively encourage dangerous technology (e.g. incinerators are superficially cheap) or are marked by their inability to distinguish the good from the crap (e.g. medical devices).
Who decides what's good and what's crap? Let me see if I understand. Are you advocating that personal choice in medical devices, food, etc., be supplanted by government dictate? Do you understand that in many cases, a person is interested in strong cryptography just so that she can make her own choices in such matters, free of interference by a do-gooder who thinks he knows better than she? That she sees crypto as a way to defend against him (e.g. by buying ``unsafe medical devices'' through BlackNet)? ``Market forces'' are just the sum of personal choices. John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by jkreznar@ininx.com | mutual consent, or not at all. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLpIRDMDhz44ugybJAQFVXwP/b55FYnEtdtviLZMeWovqd4L5nB4SVkpK 4st4aP2wvIp2AR8Zzn5X8SEufOunq96qy0QfMPEBwHqMD0eAs1rZbItjX0lFZ2VB 3uSJ+Ah45qb5IEnwQbYq36a3pgROfr2dvDyM/8pRnyCOeT1MY6xVZO9+6TZf9AA6 hEtDK9CH+5c= =Ol27 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John E. Kreznar scripsit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Crim Tideson writes:
That being said let it be known that I consider the following as a "Cypherpunk victory."
1. Complete freedom of technology, particularly encryption technology, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ regulated only by market forces. This implies the lack of import/export restrictions, and a complete absence of projects designed to limit ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ technology, or to standardize it for nefarious ends like Clipper. ^^^^^^^^^^
I think you overgeneralize. No limits on toxic waste incinerators, low-mileage automobiles, unsafe medical devices, genetically tampered food, or nuclear reactors? "Market forces" in such cases positively encourage dangerous technology (e.g. incinerators are superficially cheap) or are marked by their inability to distinguish the good from the crap (e.g. medical devices).
Who decides what's good and what's crap?
Let me see if I understand. Are you advocating that personal choice in medical devices, food, etc., be supplanted by government dictate?
Do you understand that in many cases, a person is interested in strong cryptography just so that she can make her own choices in such matters, free of interference by a do-gooder who thinks he knows better than she? That she sees crypto as a way to defend against him (e.g. by buying ``unsafe medical devices'' through BlackNet)?
This is especially true with products that are pulled from the market to save the average (read idiot) consumer from him/herself. Or products put there for the same reason. The amount of law that is intended to safeguard the world and cater to the bottom of the barrel when it comes to intellect and intelligence is significant. I really don't want a function on all cars sold in the United States which prevents people from starting their car with the clutch engaged. I actually find use for starting with the clutch engaged. I can't stand ABS, and can usually threshold brake much more effectively than ABS can pulse brake. I turn ABS off. It's an idiot button. It's the product of a culture that presses the button on the ATM machine, but has no idea what's going on behind the screen. Who's to tell me I have to have ABS or the "safety starter" if I don't want the thing? Who's to tell me that I need a backdoor in my crypto? Where do you draw the line? Outlaw sugar perhaps? It would save consumers millions in dental bills.
``Market forces'' are just the sum of personal choices.
And a "failed market" is when the market doesn't match up with the administrator's choices.
John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by jkreznar@ininx.com | mutual consent, or not at all.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a [...] -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-uni- (Dark) -- 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!
Black Unicorn writes: $ Who's to tell me I have to have ABS or the "safety starter" if I don't $ want the thing? $ Who's to tell me that I need a backdoor in my crypto? $ Where do you draw the line? Outlaw sugar perhaps? It would save $ consumers millions in dental bills. Uh-oh. I *really* don't have the time to get drawn into this one, but I'll offer a brief response. Choosing the place to draw the line is indeed the crux of the matter IMHO. I try to draw it at the point where one person's misuse of technology starts to hurt another person (which often begs the question, I know !). Considering some of your examples: Offhand it seems no-one but the driver could have a direct problem from using a car w/o the "safety starter", so I'd say that shouldn't be imposed. I don't drive stick, so I may well be missing a crucial technical point here. OTOH I can see that ABS could stop a lot of slow/non-alert people from slamming their cars into me & mine; I trust the technology more than the people who would be replacing it. I'm happy that it's a fairly standard feature, although this seems to be more a result of market demand than regulation. Your mention of outlawing sugar calls to mind some debates about smoking bans. Here IMHO the line is clear. When you eat sugar next to me, you're not doing me any harm unless I'm forced to pay your dental bills. In sharp contrast, I consider smoking in company to be assault with a deadly weapon. My choice of self-defense in this case is legislation preventing anyone from smoking in my airspace. I have no problem with people smoking in private where the smoke's never going to harm me. Of course, the explosive success of bullshit litigation (strongly aided IMHO by our lowest-common-denominator jury selection system) has played a major role in inducing companies & the govt. to go overboard protecting people from their own idiocy. I just want to be protected from other people's idiocy :) I won't touch on the question of required backdoor installation.... -L. McCarthy Send me mail using "Subject: remailer-help" for an autoreply about Underdog
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Lewis McCarthy <lmccarth@ducie.cs.umass.edu> writes:
My choice of self-defense in this case is legislation preventing anyone from smoking in my airspace.
What, exactly, is ``your'' airspace? If you want legislative control over what's yours, maybe you should also escrow your private crypto keys with them? John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by jkreznar@ininx.com | mutual consent, or not at all. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLpJ7/MDhz44ugybJAQHOcwP+LIY9rwLvrasd3IoidQ39Oigy6N22ZEOL aZ9TZJx0tN1ywTwfiBLP9iNSOXKU9vpziDdy55AwSZZuLyWutUDsTDsjLIufDhBm 7kwceS2LrrPZNJpEGeyRBWv+CBOkN5URnsD3Rm+rxrBG0a6LdyTUupp6KVIz34xh YQNjss0r0jc= =i8zw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Kreznar writes: $ L. McCarthy <lmccarth@ducie.cs.umass.edu> writes: $ > My choice of self-defense in this case is legislation preventing $ > anyone from smoking in my airspace. $ What, exactly, is ``your'' airspace? The air I breathe. You don't have a right to make me breathe your smoke. As long as you keep your smoke to yourself, I'm happy. $ If you want legislative control over what's yours, First of all, I shouldn't have to ask someone to stop trying to kill me. Beyond that, if I ask someone to desist, she may refuse. Then I can either a) personally force her to stop, or b) have a third party force her to stop. In some cases, I'll be unable to stop her on my own, and in any case it's safer for me to have a third party take care of it. So yeah, when the assholes out there try to fuck with what I consider mine, I need some folks in blue suits to step in and shove them out of the way. -L. McCarthy Send me mail using "Subject: remailer-help" for an autoreply about Underdog
Lewis McCarthy scripsit [...]
Choosing the place to draw the line is indeed the crux of the matter IMHO. I try to draw it at the point where one person's misuse of technology starts to hurt another person (which often begs the question, I know !).
We're basically on the same wavelength after all.
Considering some of your examples: [...]
OTOH I can see that ABS could stop a lot of slow/non-alert people from slamming their cars into me & mine; I trust the technology more than the people who would be replacing it. I'm happy that it's a fairly standard feature, although this seems to be more a result of market demand than regulation.
My point (poorly expressed) was that making these mandatory would annoy me. I'm actually pleased with ABS as a market function.
Your mention of outlawing sugar calls to mind some debates about smoking bans. Here IMHO the line is clear. When you eat sugar next to me, you're not doing me any harm unless I'm forced to pay your dental bills. In sharp contrast, I consider smoking in company to be assault with a deadly weapon. My choice of self-defense in this case is legislation preventing anyone from smoking in my airspace. I have no problem with people smoking in private where the smoke's never going to harm me.
You make the massive leap in logic here that eludes the legislators. It's the impact on others in the SPECIFIC and not the aggregate that should be used to determine limitations on technology. I tend to preach absolutism in deregulation (or near to it) because allowing distinction threatens to put legislators in the position of deciding where the line is. You think I want to be forced to buy an ABS car because the average driver is an idiot and because Driving School is a joke? Of course not. I refuse to be bound by the national average.
Of course, the explosive success of bullshit litigation (strongly aided IMHO by our lowest-common-denominator jury selection system) has played a major role in inducing companies & the govt. to go overboard protecting people from their own idiocy. I just want to be protected from other people's idiocy :)
I don't see the connection here. How does the jury system contribute to government intervention? Whatever the jury verdict in a civil suit, the government still has to say "We can't allow all these law suits, let's ban X so there wont be any more." You can have 40 billion in judgements against KY jelly, that doesn't mean government needs to be involved. The judgements, the publicity, and the civil system have SOLVED the problem. Those who might have had problems with KY have been compensated, those who are smart consumers will avoid KY, and KY will either go out of business, make massive efforts to correct the problem and get the information out there that that problem has been corrected, or it can afford the suits. I'd prefer to see a consumer monitoring program, listing complaints, lawsuits and quality ratings on products available via net/1-800 number and etc. A "good housekeeping" rating of A to F for example. If this information system is handled properly and given enough detail and depth there are no such problems. The market will regulate and the incentives will be to provide the best product, at the lowest cost. Information is the key, and if the consumer cannot bother him or herself to check out the product they buy I'm not sympathetic. Of course one cypherpunk is sure to say: "Nice, but not about cryptography." Part of the problem with cryptography and technology today is that consumers have little if any information about the field. What a shame it would be if the market were killed by government "we know what's best for you before you've even seen it" before it ever got big.
I won't touch on the question of required backdoor installation....
-L. McCarthy Send me mail using "Subject: remailer-help" for an autoreply about Underdog
-uni- (Dark) [Follow ups to alt.market.systems] -- 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!
participants (4)
-
Black Unicorn -
jkreznar＠ininx.com -
Lewis McCarthy -
nobody＠jpunix.com