Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
Tim May writes:
Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the "far out' sweet spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes, think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are forbidden to.
It is good to see some frank discussion of morality here. Too often cypherpunks seem to assume that anything that can be done, should be done. However on closer examination it's not clear that many of the examples above satisfy both financial and moral constraints. "Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes." How much money do they have? More importantly, how much are they willing and able to spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market technologies? These guys aren't rolling in dough. "Revolutionaries overthrowing bad governments." The main revolutionaries who will be willing to pay money are those who expect to get rich from their revolution. These are the ones who want to throw out the tyrants so they can set themselves up as new tyrants. It is people like this who would be the best customers of cypherpunk technology. You're not making the world a better place by giving them tools. "Distribution of birth control information in Islamic countries." Again, selling to Planned Parenthood is not a business plan which will make anyone rich. "Jews hiding their assets in Swiss bank accounts." Financial privacy is in fact potentially big business, but let's face it, most of the customers today are not Jews fearing confiscation by anti-semitic governments. That's not in the cards. Most of the money will be tainted, and even if it is largely drug money and you don't think drugs should be illegal, much drug money is dirty even by libertarian standards. It is used for bribes, for coercion, even for murder. Facilitating such activities does not help to make drugs legal, it just gives murdering drug lords more wealth and power and provides justification for increasing military funding to fight the drug war. "People avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes." This is a good one, lots of customers, plenty of money, few moral problems. Even if you support some government programs, it will take a long time before enough people adopt privacy protection tools that it could have a significant impact on government tax revenues. The big problem here is coming up with the a technology that can do the job. "People selling their expertise when some guild says they are forbidden to." Morally this one seems OK. In a net already filled with bogus medical and legal advice it can't make things much worse. On the other hand it's not clear that the existing prohibitions are hurting anyone's bottom line. How much can you really expect to make by selling forbidden advice? It's not clear that there is much of a market for this technology but possibly someone could find a killer app here. The conclusion is that you need to add a third axis to Tim's graph: morality, in addition to value and cost. Many of the most lucrative potential uses of anonymity technologies are morally questionable. If you add this additional filter you are forced to focus on just a few application areas (with the additional complication that few people will agree on morality, and that morality and legality often have little overlap).
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:40 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Tim May writes:
Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the "far out' sweet spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes, think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are forbidden to.
It is good to see some frank discussion of morality here. Too often cypherpunks seem to assume that anything that can be done, should be done.
However on closer examination it's not clear that many of the examples above satisfy both financial and moral constraints.
"Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes." How much money do they have? More importantly, how much are they willing and able to spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market technologies? These guys aren't rolling in dough.
The IRA and the Real IRA have a lot of money, as the Brits have been complaining about recently. Osama bin Laden is said to control more than a billion dollars. And so on. I disagree with you assertion that "these guys aren't rolling in dough." (Note that I am _not_ saying they are likely to start using a student project remailer operating out of dorm room in Schenectady. A different issue.)
"Revolutionaries overthrowing bad governments." The main revolutionaries who will be willing to pay money are those who expect to get rich from their revolution. These are the ones who want to throw out the tyrants so they can set themselves up as new tyrants. It is people like this who would be the best customers of cypherpunk technology. You're not making the world a better place by giving them tools.
You make the assumption that overthrowing, say, the PRC or USSR governments, would result in a "worse or just as bad" regime. I disagree. And the same tools are still available to deconstruct interim replacement regimes.
"Distribution of birth control information in Islamic countries." Again, selling to Planned Parenthood is not a business plan which will make anyone rich.
Planned Parenthood is not envisaged as the user....
The conclusion is that you need to add a third axis to Tim's graph: morality, in addition to value and cost. Many of the most lucrative potential uses of anonymity technologies are morally questionable. If you add this additional filter you are forced to focus on just a few application areas (with the additional complication that few people will agree on morality, and that morality and legality often have little overlap).
The technology is agnostic to "morality." Choate argues that at least 5 or 6 axes are needed. Ever the nitwit, he fails to realize that the main debate doesn't even use the _two_ that I have outlined. Yes, I know about phase spaces and multi-dimensional diagrams. But given that the debate about privacy tools is mired at the 1D level ("untracebility good, traceability bad...why don't the proles see this?"), graphing the major users and suppliers on the 2D graph I outlined is a step in the right direction. It goes a long way to explaining why people will spend thousands to fly to the Caymans to set up a bank account while others won't even bother using PGP. You want to add "morality" to the chart. Fine, except I don't see how it gives different answers than my chart gave. --Tim May
At 09:40 PM 8/27/01 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
"People selling their expertise when some guild says they are forbidden to." Morally this one seems OK. In a net already filled with bogus medical and legal advice it can't make things much worse. On the other hand it's not clear that the existing prohibitions are hurting anyone's bottom line.
In some US states, you can be prohibited from working for a competitor for some time after you leave. Combine that with telecommuting.
-- On 27 Aug 2001, at 21:40, Nomen Nescio wrote:
"Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes." How much money do they have? More importantly, how much are they willing and able to spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market technologies? These guys aren't rolling in dough.
Freedom fighters are generally funded by expatriates resident in sympathetic foreign countries. These expatriates need C3 equipment to ensure that their money is not being embezzled or misused. By and large they are not using it, and should be.
"Jews hiding their assets in Swiss bank accounts." Financial privacy is in fact potentially big business, but let's face it, most of the customers today are not Jews fearing confiscation by anti-semitic governments. That's not in the cards. Most of the money will be tainted
I find this unlikely. The powerful confiscate from the vulnerable because they want the money, not because the vulnerable are sinners deserving to have their money confiscated. It is always loudly proclaimed that the money is tainted. When the Swiss banks were receiving the money from jews it was supposedly tainted because it came from jews. Later it was supposedly tainted because it came from nazis. Any money is tainted when someone else wants it. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG N9AHhvoqlS9Irm/IDeEE6I1kYHYUm+CQGmeXPy82 44sVXA0FdW2m4055Ed20ew+iE84uYRYERsDpl8PjJ
On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 09:50 AM, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
-- On 27 Aug 2001, at 21:40, Nomen Nescio wrote:
"Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes." How much money do they have? More importantly, how much are they willing and able to spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market technologies? These guys aren't rolling in dough.
Freedom fighters are generally funded by expatriates resident in sympathetic foreign countries. These expatriates need C3 equipment to ensure that their money is not being embezzled or misused. By and large they are not using it, and should be.
"Jews hiding their assets in Swiss bank accounts." Financial privacy is in fact potentially big business, but let's face it, most of the customers today are not Jews fearing confiscation by anti-semitic governments. That's not in the cards. Most of the money will be tainted
I find this unlikely. The powerful confiscate from the vulnerable because they want the money, not because the vulnerable are sinners deserving to have their money confiscated.
It is always loudly proclaimed that the money is tainted. When the Swiss banks were receiving the money from jews it was supposedly tainted because it came from jews. Later it was supposedly tainted because it came from nazis. Any money is tainted when someone else wants it.
And in both of these examples I gave, "Nomen Nescio" took a literal reading of the examples. "But Ireland is not a communist regime!" "But they are not Jews!" Examples, like the half dozen I gave, are designed to convey to the reader the range of uses, needs, and justifications. The specific stands for the general. Both Nomen and Aimee are remarkably block-headed in seeing the big picture. --Tim May
participants (4)
-
David Honig -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
Nomen Nescio -
Tim May