Cryptographic protocols for government?

5 Apr 2001

      I've been thinking about the Bell case and what it represents. 

The case really turns on a central point, I think; an individual's 
right or lack thereof to do the things for himself that government 
traditionally does for him.  

The government normally investigates crooks, ostensibly for the 
benefit of the citizens.  But what happens when a citizen 
attempts to do the same?  Well, we get the sort of thing that's 
happening in that courtroom.  Bell made it pretty personal, 
evidently, and his idea of what constitutes a "crook" may differ 
from yours, mine, and (especially) that of the government of the 
US, and he was evidently bungling the investigation anyway 
(wasn't able to find whom he was looking for and wound up 
pestering people who had the same name or lived at the same h
ouse...). 

But seriously, what was he doing?  At least in his own mind, 
he was investigating a crook.  

And what was AP?  (besides being unimplementable and susceptible 
to all kinds of abuse by anyone with money?) It was an attempt
at a cryptographic protocol to regulate the use of force. In 
effect, it was a protocol intended to replace government.

And this brings up some very fundamental points about the 
distinction between private citizens and agents of a government, 
especially if you ascribe to the view that all government 
powers are derived from and ultimately belong to the people. 

I personally think that, as information becomes more and more 
available, government becomes less and less necessary.  Or 
maybe the idea should be expressed as "Government is a protocol 
for collaborative or collective action in the absence of the 
availability of complete information and the bandwidth to 
disseminate it.  As the information becomes available, the 
need for this protocol declines."  

And in a crypto-enabled world, where anyone can say anything 
anonymously and as publicly as they like, information will be 
available.  (insert caveat re: sturgeon's law)  

But Bell's behavior brings up other issues.  For collaborative 
or collective action, you can't have one guy haring off with 
his own definitions of everything and trying to enforce laws 
nobody else believes exist.

So, a question.  How could a reasonably peacable and stable  
society, lacking government-as-we-know-it but rich in automation
and cryptographic protocols, deal with crime and criminals? 
Is there any way to ensure that the actions taken by the group 
(you may think of it as "laws enforced", but "law" has an odd 
flavor of meaning in the absence of government-as-we-know-it) 
actually conform to a consensus of what the people want enforced, 
without unduly trampling the dissenters nor creating positions 
of disproportionate power for individuals?  How could people 
doing investigations be compensated and sustained at an 
appropriate level by the group? Do some information resources 
need to be restricted to those doing investigations?

I have some ideas on how to do similar things for moderating 
mailing lists, but no solid ideas yet on how to regulate the 
use of physical force. 

				Bear

Ray Dillinger

Jim Choate

tags

participants (2)