Computer underground Digest Sun Dec 5 1993 Volume 5 : Issue 91 ISSN 1004-042X ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 02 Dec 93 04:36:10 -0700 From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@LONGS.LANCE.COLOSTATE.EDU> Subject: File 1--Anarchy Gone Awry Mr. Leichter raises some extremely pivotal issues in CUD #5.90 related to the `anarchy' of the Internet. B.Sterling is the author of one of the most brilliantly colorful characterizations and metaphors of the Internet as `anarchic', comparing its evolution and development to that of the English language:

The Internet's `anarchy' may seem strange or even unnatural, but it makes a certain deep and basic sense. It's rather like the `anarchy' of the English language. Nobody rents English, and nobody owns English. As an English-speaking person, it's up to you to learn how to speak English properly and make whatever use you please of it (though the government provides certain subsidies to help you learn to read and write a bit). Otherwise, everybody just sort of pitches in, and somehow the thing evolves on its own, and somehow turns out workable. And interesting. Fascinating, even. Though a lot of people earn their living from using and exploiting and teaching English, `English' as an institution is public property, a public good. Much the same goes for the Internet. Would English be improved if the `The English Language, Inc.' had a board of directors and a chief executive officer, or a President and a Congress? There'd probably be a lot fewer new words in English, and a lot fewer new ideas.

Unfortunately, though, having attended a lecture by Mr. Sterling and having read `The Hacker Crackdown', I think he has a tendency to overdramatize and glorify quasi-criminal behavior and rebellious, subversive, revolutionary aspects of social structures, including those of the Internet. In my view, to the contrary the Internet is largely held together with the glue of social cohesion and human civility, and ingredients that are destructive to that order are likewise toxic to Cyberspace, and that, conversely, virtually all of the excruciating poison in the bloodstream today can be traced to violations and perversions of that trust. (Unfortunately, the English language is itself subject to unpleasant, corrupt, or toxic uses such as for profanity, disinformation, and lies, which are prevented or at least minimized through rejections by honest people.) I agree with Mr. Leichter in the belief (to paraphrase Twain) that `reports of the anarchy on the Internet are greatly exaggerated'. Leichter:

The Internet has been described as an anarchy, but in fact only relatively small parts of the Internet are actually anarchic.

I would like to go further than this and suggest that the Internet has been over-promoted as `anarchic' by certain subversive, quasi-criminal segments that have found a tenacious hold there, namely extremist libertarians and `Cryptoanarchists'. The Cryptoanarchist cause is closely associated with the Cypherpunk founders E.Hughes and T.C.May (characterized particularly by the latter's infamous signature), who in my view appear to promote not merely `privacy for the masses' and `the cryptographic revolution', but at least condone or tolerate the use of collections of imaginary identities to manipulate and deceive others, and even to evade legitimate government actions such as criminal prosecutions. My most strident requests for their position, personal knowledge, and potential involvement in this practice have gone unanswered, evaded, and repressed over many weeks, but I have many statements from followers that might be regarded as `cult fanatics' about the Liberating Effects of `pseudoanonymity', which they exalt as True Anonymity. In my opinion, in this regard of the ease of creating fake identities, the `anarchic' vulnerability of the Internet reaches its peak in undesirable and socially poisonous consequences, which people are bloodily battling daily on many diverse mailing lists and Usenet groups. In my experience, the Internet inhabitants I have found who most fanatically worship the Internet `anarchy' seem to be closely associated with criminally subversive aims of pornography distribution, tax evasion, black marketeering, and overthrow of governments, goals which are all masked in much of the eloquent Cryptoanarchist dogma and rhetoric. While some of us have glimpsed various hideous corners of Cyberspatial Hell, those who subscribe to the Liberating Religion of Anarchy are in their Paradise on the Internet As We Know It. I call their Utopia a Ticking Time Bomb and a Recipe for an Apocalypse. I have come to these (admittedly melodramatic) conclusions after ~10 months and ~3500 messages of generally unpleasant and at times excruciatingly troubling and painful reading and participation on the Cypherpunks list and many personal communications with the Cypherpunk leaders including E.Hughes, T.C.May, and J.Gilmore. In fact, in my opinion the `Psychopunk Manifesto' parody in CUD #5.89, which longtime cypherpunk list subscriber P.Ferguson describes in 5.90 as having `made its rounds in the cyberspatial world', actually in many ways comes closer to delineating the actual cypherpunk agenda than the one authored by founder E.Hughes on soda.berkeley.edu: /pub/cypherpunks/rants/A_Cypherpunk's_Manifesto. The satire is actually a reformulated version of the original Manifesto, and the former's amazing meme-virus penetration of the into the cyberspatial psyche that P.Ferguson alludes to is indicative of its resonance over the latter. I gave the Cypherpunks the most extraordinary benefit of the doubt for months, far beyond that of a reasonable cyberspatial inhabitant. But now I must warn everyone who can hear me that if they assign the `cypherpunks' as an organization the same credibility as a group like EFF or CPSR they are dangerously, perhaps disastrously, misguided. They appear to me to the contrary to be the cultivators of a flourishing conspiracy and essentially the first Cyberspatial guerilla and terrorist group! The Psychopunk satirization of the Cryptoanarchists is representative of this Internet Anarchy Gone Awry. More information on the CryptoAnarchist & Cypherpunk agenda can be found in RISKS 15.25, 15.27, and 15.28x (FTP crvax.sri.com, directory RISKS:). I also have an essay `Joy of Pseudospoofing', regarding the dangerous consequences and poisonous effects of the manipulations of fake cyberspatial identities such as on the Internet by Cryptoanarchists, available to anyone who requests it from me by email at <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>. * * * I think that many people have mistaken the word `anarchic,' implying no overseeing authority or order (which the Internet is less) with the word `decentralized' (which the Internet is more). Again, the Internet has many regulatory and self-governing systems and orders. For example, connecting sites are required to implement a certain minimum set of software standards and prevent or even root out corruptions in their local sites and software. We have centralized databases that require the registration of domains for fees. A complex network of agreements and policies governs interconnectivity and communication, and a complicated interplay of elements affects basic content such as `commercial vs. academic.' Lack of some of these regulations and protocols would be disastrous. Leichter:

Most of the Internet, in fact, is better described as self-governing. There are a variety of social norms concerning network use and interactions. One doesn't post messages to unrelated groups. One doesn't evade moderation restrictions. One maintains a certain (rather limited, it must be admitted) degree of restraint in how one describes other network participants. There are few effective mechanisms for enforcing these norms, and they are certainly broken on an all-too-regular basis; but the network continues to function because social pressure *can* be applied to those who become too annoying; and in the most outrageous cases, it's possible to remove the offenders' access to the net.

I advocate that we build new formal mechanisms to enforce this order! We have for too long pretended that a central element of the Internet is not integral to it, namely that of the `degree of restraint over network participants' exerted through `social pressure'. Let us codify and formalize these `norms concerning network use and interactions' and develop systems that enforce them! I believe such systems can be developed that do not stray from the sacred Internet tradition of decentralization of control and freedom from censorship. Why should we continue to subject ourselves to the torture of `few effective mechanisms for enforcing these norms broken on an all-too-regular basis'? One of my most enduring Cyberspatial hallucinations is that of a Ratings server. A Ratings server would be a massive distributed network for the propagation of information similar to Usenet, and could conceivably be built upon it. But the Ratings server is not Information, as Usenet is, it is Information about Information. Anyone can post an arbitrary message to the Ratings server that refers to Information somewhere else in Cyberspace. It is in a sense a Rating of that Information. The Information could be *anything* -- a mailing list, a person, a particular Usenet posting, an FTP site. But postings on the Ratings server can be perused by anyone, and anyone can contribute Ratings to the server or indicate their own opinion on the existing Ratings. Different mechanisms exist such that some Ratings are `local' and some are updated globally. The fantastic possibilities of this system are evident upon some reflection and consideration. We could establish arbitrary new groups that have *formal* requirements that are matched by Ratings servers. For example, we could require that new sites that enter the Internet be `trusted' by an existing site. We could require that membership in certain groups requires a certain amount of collateral peer approval, with automatic suspension or expulsion as the consequences for violating it! We could have *meaningful* polls on arbitrary issues. We could have news servers that automatically sort and archive articles according to their passing certain Ratings thresholds. We could restrict the influence of troublemakers! These are all examples of strengthening and formalizing the informal social orders that are, in my opinion, today just barely holding the Internet together. With a Ratings system, I think the civility of the Internet would increase to a fantastic degree. In short, we could have our *own* cyberspatial government! Note that there is no centralized authority or unfair influence in this system, unless people corrupt their servers. When everyone who has joined a group *individually* decides to screen their postings of messages that fail to meet a certain `quality' or posters who have a certain `reputation', that is not Orwellian Censorship but the beautiful Internet freedom and right of Bozo Filtering. When everyone who joins a group *agrees* to a charter that may bar troublemakers based on Ratings, no one can claim they are being unfairly oppressed. Other extremely interesting implementation issues in the use of the Ratings servers can be addressed in detail. For example, the use of cryptographic protocols to ensure the integrity of voting or privacy of certain entries will certainly prove invaluable and even critical to their development. The optimal protocols for the localization or distribution of votes will surely be subject to extremely fascinating and fruitful research. In my view the concept of a Ratings server is wide open territory and holds some immensely promising potential in finally, valiantly slaying the dreaded, ugly, vicious Signal to Noise Monsters harassing, terrorizing, and torturing us everywhere on the Internet, to be replaced with Shining Castles. I urge anyone interested in developing `civilized systems for cyberspace' to subscribe to a new group I have helped start with J.Helgingius (owner of the popular and revolutionary anon.penet.fi anonymous server) called the Cypherwonks, dedicated to openness, honesty, and cooperation on the Internet, and building sophisticated new systems to promote social harmony in Future Cyberspace. We are particularly fascinated with the possibilities of `Electronic Democracy'. (Send a message to `MajorDomo@lists.eunet.fi' with the body the commands `info' or `subscribe cypherwonks'.) I fervently hope that the glorifications and manipulations of Internet Anarchy by mouth-frothing libertarian extremists, Cryptoanarchists, and sympathizers can be adequately controlled and minimized in the future, and some harmonious systems and effective countermeasures along the lines of the Rating server can be established by visionaries and tinkerers, but in any case, for the sake of humanity's integrity, sanity, and well-being, I pray that Future Cyberspace is far less Anarchic than the Current Internet. ------------------------------