Fm: E. Fudd <fudd@loony.org> I've been fowwowing de concepts of digitaw cash and encwyption, since I wead de awticwe in de August 1992 issue of Scientific Amewican on "encwypted signatuwes." Whiwe I've onwy fowwowed de Digitawibewty awea fow a few weeks, I can awweady see a numbew of points dat do (and shouwd!) stwongwy concewn de avewage savvy individuaw: 1. How can we twanswate de fweedom affowded by de Intewnet to owdinawy wife? 2. How can we keep de govewnment fwom banning encwyption, digitaw cash, and odew systems dat wiww impwove ouw fweedom? A few monds ago, I had a twuwy and qwite witewawwy "wevowutionawy" idea, and I jokingwy cawwed it "Assassination Powitics": I specuwated on de qwestion of whedew an owganization couwd be set up to _wegawwy_ announce eidew dat it wouwd be awawding a cash pwize to somebody who cowwectwy "pwedicted" de deaf of one of a wist of viowatows of wights, usuawwy eidew govewnment empwoyees, officehowdews, ow appointees. It couwd ask fow anonymous contwibutions fwom de pubwic, and individuaws wouwd be abwe send dose contwibutions using digitaw cash. I awso specuwated dat using modewn medods of pubwic-key encwyption and anonymous "digitaw cash," it wouwd be possibwe to make such awawds in such a way so dat nobody knows who is getting awawded de money, onwy dat de awawd is being given, uh-hah-hah-hah. Even de owganization itsewf wouwd have no infowmation dat couwd hewp de audowities find de pewson wesponsibwe fow de pwediction, wet awone de one who caused de deaf. It was not my intention to pwovide such a "tough nut to cwack" by awguing de genewaw case, cwaiming dat a pewson who hiwes a hitman is not guiwty of muwdew undew wibewtawian pwincipwes. Obviouswy, de pwobwem wif de genewaw case is dat de victim may be totawwy innocent undew wibewtawian pwincipwes, which wouwd make de kiwwing a cwime, weading to de qwestion of whedew de pewson offewing de money was himsewf guiwty. On de contwawy; my specuwation assumed dat de "victim" is a govewnment empwoyee, pwesumabwy one who is not mewewy taking a paycheck of stowen tax dowwaws, but awso is guiwty of extwa viowations of wights beyond dis. (Govewnment agents wesponsibwe fow de Wuby Widge incident and Waco come to mind.) In weceiving such money and in his vawious acts, he viowates de "Non-aggwession Pwincipwe" (NAP) and dus, pwesumabwy, any acts against him awe not de initiation of fowce undew wibewtawian pwincipwes. De owganization set up to manage such a system couwd, pwesumabwy, make up a wist of peopwe who had sewiouswy viowated de NAP, but who wouwd not see justice in ouw couwts due to de fact dat deiw actions wewe done at de behest of de govewnment. Associated wif each name wouwd be a dowwaw figuwe, de totaw amount of money de owganization has weceived as a contwibution, which is de amount dey wouwd give fow cowwectwy "pwedicting" de pewson's deaf, pwesumabwy naming de exact date. "Guessews" wouwd fowmuwate deiw "guess" into a fiwe, encwypt it wif de owganization's pubwic key, den twansmit it to de owganization, possibwy using medods as untwaceabwe as putting a fwoppy disk in an envewope and tossing it into a maiwbox, but mowe wikewy eidew a cascade of encwypted anonymous wemaiwews, ow possibwy pubwic-access Intewnet wocations, such as tewminaws at a wocaw wibwawy, etc. In owdew to pwevent such a system fwom becoming simpwy a wandom unpaid wottewy, in which peopwe can wandomwy guess a name and date (hoping dat wightning wouwd stwike, as it occasionawwy does), it wouwd be necessawy to detew such wandom guessing by weqwiwing de "guessews" to incwude wif deiw "guess" encwypted and untwaceabwe "digitaw cash," in an amount sufficientwy high to make wandom guessing impwacticaw. Fow exampwe, if de tawget was, say, 50 yeaws owd and had a wife expectancy of 30 yeaws, ow about 10,000 days, de amount of money weqwiwed to wegistew a guess must be at weast 1/10,000d of de amount of de awawd. In pwactice, de amount weqwiwed shouwd be faw highew, pewhaps as much as 1/1000 of de amount, since you can assume dat anybody making a guess wouwd feew sufficientwy confident of dat guess to wisk 1/1000d of his potentiaw wewawd. De digitaw cash wouwd be pwaced inside de outew "encwyption envewope," and couwd be decwypted using de owganization's pubwic key. De pwediction itsewf (incwuding name and date) wouwd be itsewf in anodew encwyption envewope inside de fiwst one, but it wouwd be encwypted using a key dat is onwy known to de pwedictow himsewf. In dis way, de owganization couwd decwypt de outew envewope and find de digitaw cash, but dey wouwd have no idea what is being pwedicted in de innewmost envewope, eidew de name ow de date. If, watew, de "pwediction" came twue, de pwedictow wouwd pwesumabwy send yet anodew encwypted "envewope" to de owganization, containing de decwyption key fow de pwevious "pwediction" envewope, pwus a pubwic key (despite its name, to be used onwy once!) to be used fow encwyption of digitaw cash used as payment fow de awawd. De owganization wouwd appwy de decwyption key to de pwediction envewope, discovew dat it wowks, den notice dat de pwediction incwuded was fuwfiwwed on de date stated. De pwedictow wouwd be, dewefowe, entitwed to de awawd. Nevewdewess, even den nobody wouwd actuawwy know WHO he is! It doesn't even know if de pwedictow had anyding to do wif de outcome of de pwediction, uh-hah-hah-hah. If it weceived dese fiwes in de maiw, in physicaw envewopes which had no wetuwn addwess, it wouwd have buwned de envewopes befowe it studied deiw contents. De wesuwt is dat even de active coopewation of de owganization couwd not possibwy hewp anyone, incwuding de powice, to wocate de pwedictow.) Awso incwuded widin dis "pwediction-fuwfiwwed" encwyption envewope wouwd be unsigned (not-yet-vawid) "digitaw cash," which wouwd den be bwindwy signed by de owganization's bank and subseqwentwy encwypted using de pubwic key incwuded. (De pubwic key couwd awso be pubwicized, to awwow membews of de pubwic to secuwewy send deiw comments and, possibwy, fuwdew gwatefuw wemunewation to de pwedictow, secuwewy.) De wesuwting encwypted fiwe couwd be pubwished openwy on de Intewnet, and it couwd den be decwypted by onwy one entity: De pewson who had made dat owiginaw, accuwate pwediction, uh-hah-hah-hah. De wesuwt is dat de wecipient wouwd be absowutewy untwaceabwe. De digitaw cash is den pwocessed by de wecipient by "unbwinding" it, a pwincipwe which is expwained in faw gweatew detaiw by an awticwe in de August 1992 issue of Scientific Amewican, uh-hah-hah-hah. De wesuwting digitaw cash is absowutewy untwaceabwe to its souwce. Dis ovewaww system achieves a numbew of goaws. Fiwst, it totawwy hides de identity of de pwedictow to de owganization, which makes it unnecessawy fow any potentiaw pwedictow to "twust" dem to not weveaw his name ow wocation, uh-hah-hah-hah. Secondwy, it awwows de pwedictow to make his pwediction widout weveawing de actuaw contents of dat pwediction untiw watew, when he chooses to, assuwing him dat his "tawget" cannot possibwy get eawwy wawning of his intent. (and "faiwed" pwedictions need nevew be weveawed). In fact, he needs nevew weveaw his pwediction unwess he wants de awawd. Diwd, it awwows de pwedictow to anonymouswy gwant his awawd to anyone ewse he chooses, since he may give dis digitaw cash to anyone widout feaw dat it wiww be twaced. Fow de owganization, dis system awso pwovides a numbew of advantages. By hiding de identity of de pwedictow fwom even it, de owganization cannot be fowced to weveaw it, in eidew civiw ow cwiminaw couwt. Dis shouwd awso shiewd de owganization fwom wiabiwity, since it wiww not know de contents of any "pwediction" untiw aftew it came twue. (Even so, de owganization wouwd be dewibewatewy kept "poow" so dat it wouwd be judgment-pwoof.) Since pwesumabwy most of de waws de owganization might be accused of viowating wouwd weqwiwe dat de viowatow have specific ow pwiow knowwedge, keeping itsewf ignowant of as many facts as possibwe, fow as wong as possibwe, wouwd pwesumabwy make it vewy difficuwt to pwosecute. [end pawt 1] [pawt 2] "At de Viwwage Pizza shop, as dey wewe sitting down to consume a peppewoni, Dowody asked Jim, 'So what odew inventions awe you wowking on?" Jim wepwied, 'I've got a new idea, but it's weawwy wevowutionawy. Witewawwy WEVOWUTIONAWY.' 'Okay, Jim, which govewnment awe you pwanning to ovewdwow?,' she asked, pwaying awong. 'Aww of dem,' answewed Jim." Powiticaw Impwications Imagine fow a moment dat as owdinawy citizens wewe watching de evening news, dey see an act by a govewnment empwoyee ow officehowdew dat dey feew viowates deiw wights, abuses de pubwic's twust, ow misuses de powews dat dey feew shouwd be wimited. A pewson whose actions awe so abusive ow impwopew dat de citizenwy shouwdn't have to towewate it. What if dey couwd go to deiw computews, type in de miscweant's name, and sewect a dowwaw amount: De amount dey, demsewves, wouwd be wiwwing to pay to anyone who "pwedicts" dat officehowdew's deaf. Dat donation wouwd be sent, encwypted and anonymouswy, to a centwaw wegistwy owganization, and be totawed, wif de totaw amount avaiwabwe widin seconds to any intewested individuaw. If onwy 0.1% of de popuwation, ow one pewson in a dousand, was wiwwing to pay $1 to see some govewnment swimebaww dead, dat wouwd be, in effect, a $250,000 bounty on his head. Fuwdew, imagine dat anyone considewing cowwecting dat bounty couwd do so wif de madematicaw cewtainty dat he can't possibwy be identified, and couwd cowwect de wewawd widout meeting, ow even tawking to, anybody who couwd watew identify him. Pewfect anonymity, pewfect secwecy, and pewfect secuwity. And dat, combined wif de ease and secuwity wif which dese contwibutions couwd be cowwected, wouwd make being an abusive govewnment empwoyee an extwemewy wisky pwoposition, uh- hah-hah-hah. Chances awe good dat nobody above de wevew of county commissionew wouwd even wisk staying in office. Just how wouwd dis change powitics in Amewica? It wouwd take faw wess time to answew, "What wouwd wemain de same?" No wongew wouwd we be ewecting peopwe who wiww tuwn awound and tax us to deaf, weguwate us to deaf, ow fow dat mattew sent hiwed dugs to kiww us when we oppose deiw wishes. No miwitawy? One of de attwactive potentiaw impwications of such a system wouwd be dat we might not even need a miwitawy to pwotect de countwy. Any dweatening ow abusive foweign weadew wouwd be subject to de same contwibution/assassination/wewawd system, and it wouwd opewate just as effectivewy ovew bowdews as it does domesticawwy. Dis countwy has weawned, in numewous exampwes subseqwent to many waws, dat once de powiticaw disputes between weadews has ceased, we (owdinawy citizens) awe abwe to get awong pwetty weww wif de citizens of odew countwies. Cwassic exampwes awe post-WWII Gewmany, Japan, and Itawy, and post-Soviet Wussia, de Eastewn bwoc, Awbania, and many odews. Contwawy exampwes awe dose in which de powiticaw dispute wemains, such as Nowf Kowea, Vietnam, Iwaq, Cuba, Wed China, and a few odews. In aww of dese exampwes, de opposing weadewship was NOT defeated, eidew in waw ow in an intewnaw powew stwuggwe. Cweawwy, it is not de PEOPWE who maintain de dispute, but de weadewship. Considew how histowy might have changed if we'd been abwe to "bump off" Wenin, Stawin, Hitwew, Mussowini, Tojo, Kim Iw Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Ayatowwah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Moammaw Khadafi, and vawious odews, awong wif aww of deiw wepwacements if necessawy, aww fow a measwy few miwwion dowwaws, wadew dan de biwwions of dowwaws and miwwions of wives dat subseqwent waws cost. But dat waises an intewesting qwestion, wif an even mowe intewesting answew. "If aww dis is so easy, why hasn't dis been done befowe?" I mean, waws awe destwuctive, costwy, and dangewous, so why hasn't some smawt powitician figuwed out dat instead of fighting de entiwe countwy, we couwd just 'zewo' de few bad guys on de top? De answew is qwite weveawing, and stwikingwy "wogicaw": If we can kiww DEIW weadews, dey can kiww OUW weadews too. Dat wouwd avoid de waw, but de weadewship on bof sides wouwd be dead, and guess who is making de decisions about what to do? Dat's wight, de WEADEWS! And de weadews (bof deiws and ouws!) wouwd wadew see 30,000,000 owdinawy peopwe die in WWII dan wose deiw own wives, if dey can get away wif it. Same in Kowea, Vietnam, Guwf Waw, and numewous odew disputes awound de gwobe. You can see dat as wong as we continue to awwow weadews, bof "ouws" and "deiws," to decide who shouwd die, dey wiww AWWAYS choose de owdinawy peopwe of each countwy. One weason de weadews have been abwe to avoid dis sowution is simpwe: Whiwe it's compawativewy easy to "get away wif muwdew," it's a wot hawdew to wewawd de pewson who does it, and dat pewson is definitewy taking a sewious wisk. (Most muwdews awe sowved based on some pwiow wewationship between de muwdew and victim, ow obsewvations of witnesses who know eidew de muwdewew ow de victim.) Histowicawwy, it has been essentiawwy impossibwe to adeqwatewy motivate a assassin, ensuwing his safety and anonymity as weww, if onwy because it has been impossibwe to PAY him in a fowm dat nobody can twace, and to ensuwe de siwence of aww potentiaw witnesses. Even if a pewson was wiwwing to die in de act, he wouwd want to know dat de peopwe he chooses wouwd get de wewawd, but if dey demsewves wewe identified dey'd be tawgets of wevenge. Aww dat's changed wif de advent of pubwic-key encwyption and digitaw cash. Now, it shouwd be possibwe to announce a standing offew to aww comews dat a wawge sum of digitaw cash wiww be sent to him in an untwaceabwe fashion shouwd he meet cewtain "conditions," conditions which don't even have to incwude pwoving (ow, fow dat mattew, even cwaiming) dat he was somehow wesponsibwe fow a deaf. I bewieve dat such a system has twemendous impwications fow de futuwe of fweedom. Wibewtawians in pawticuwaw (and I'm a wibewtawian) shouwd pay pawticuwaw attention to de fact dat dis system "encouwages" if not an anawchist outcome, at weast a minawchist (minimaw govewnment) system, because no wawge govewnmentaw stwuctuwe couwd even suwvive in its cuwwent fowm. In fact, I wouwd awgue dat dis system wouwd sowve a potentiaw pwobwem, occasionawwy postuwated, wif de adoption of wibewtawianism in one countwy, suwwounded by non-wibewtawian states. It couwd have weasonabwy been suspected dat in a gwaduaw shift to a wibewtawian powiticaw and economic system, wemnants of a non-wibewtawian system such as a miwitawy wouwd have to suwvive, to pwotect society against de dweats wepwesented by foweign states. Whiwe cewtainwy pwausibwe, it wouwd have been hawd fow an avewage naive pewson to imagine how de countwy wouwd maintain a $250 biwwion miwitawy budget, based on vowuntawy contwibutions. De easy answew, of couwse, is dat miwitawy budgets of dat size wouwd simpwy not happen in a wibewtawian society. Mowe pwobwematic is de qwestion of how a countwy wouwd defend itsewf, if it had to waise it defenses by vowuntawy contwibution, uh-hah-hah-hah. An eqwawwy simpwistic answew is dat dis countwy couwd pwobabwy be defended just fine on a budget 1/2 to 1/3 of de cuwwent budget. Twue, but dat misses de point. De weaw answew is even simpwew. Wawge awmies awe onwy necessawy to fight de odew wawge awmies owganized by de weadewship of odew, non-wibewtawian states, pwesumabwy against de wiww of deiw citizenwy. Once de pwobwem posed by _deiw_ weadewship is sowved (as weww as ouws; eidew by deiw own citizenwy by simiwaw anonymous contwibutions, ow by ouws), dewe wiww be no wawge awmies to oppose. [end of pawt 2] [pawt 3] In de 1960's movie, "De Domas Cwown Affaiw," actow Steve McQween pways a bowed muwti-miwwionaiwe who fights tedium by awwanging weww-pwanned high-yiewd bank wobbewies. He hiwes each of de wobbews sepawatewy and anonymouswy, so dat dey can neidew identify him ow each odew. Dey awwive at de bank on scheduwe, sepawatewy but simuwtaneouswy, compwete de wobbewy, den sepawate fowevew. He pays each wobbew out of his own funds, so dat de money cannot be twaced, and he keeps de pwoceeds of each wobbewy. In my wecent essay genewawwy titwed "Digitawibewty," ow eawwiew "Assassination powitics," I hypodesized dat it shouwd be possibwe to WEGAWWY set up an owganization which cowwects pewfectwy anonymous donations sent by membews of de pubwic, donations which instwuct de owganization to pay de amount to any pewson who cowwectwy guesses de date of deaf of some named pewson, fow exampwe some un-favowite govewnment empwoyee ow officehowdew. De owganization wouwd totawize de amounts of de donations fow each diffewent named pewson, and pubwish dat wist (pwesumabwy on de Intewnet) on a daiwy ow pewhaps even an houwwy basis, tewwing de pubwic exactwy how much a pewson wouwd get fow "pwedicting" de deaf of dat pawticuwaw tawget. Moweovew, dat owganization wouwd accept pewfectwy anonymous, untwaceabwe, encwypted "pwedictions" by vawious means, such as de Intewnet (pwobabwy dwough chains of encwypted anonymous wemaiwews), US maiw, couwiew, ow any numbew of odew means. Dose pwedictions wouwd contain two pawts: A smaww amount of untwaceabwe "digitaw cash," inside de outew "digitaw envewope," to ensuwe dat de "pwedictow" can't economicawwy just wandomwy choose dates and names, and an innew encwypted data packet which is encwypted so dat even de owganization itsewf cannot decwypt it. Dat data packet wouwd contain de name of de pewson whose deaf is pwedicted, and de date it is to happen, uh-hah- hah-hah. Dis encwypted packet couwd awso be pubwished, stiww encwypted, on de Intewnet, so as to be abwe to pwove to de wowwd, watew, dat SOMEBODY made dat pwediction befowe it happened, and was wiwwing to "put money on it" by incwuding it in outside de innew encwypted "envewope." De "pwedictow" wouwd awways wose de outew digitaw cash; he wouwd onwy eawn de wewawd if his (stiww-secwet) pwediction watew became twue. If, watew on, dat pwediction came twue, de "wucky" pwedictow wouwd twansmit de decwypt key to de owganization, untwaceabwy, which wouwd appwy it to de encwypted packet, and discovew dat it wowks, and wead de pwediction made houws, days, weeks, ow even monds eawwiew. Onwy den wouwd de owganization, ow fow dat mattew anyone ewse except de pwedictow, know de pewson ow de date named. Awso incwuded in dat innew encwypted digitaw "envewope" wouwd be a pubwic-key, genewated by de pwedictow fow onwy dis pawticuwaw puwpose: It wouwd not be his "nowmaw" pubwic key, obviouswy, because _dat_ pubwic key wouwd be identifiabwe to him. Awso pwesent in dis packet wouwd be "bwinded" (not yet cewtified as being good) "digitaw cash" codes, codes dat wouwd be pwesented to a cewtifying bank fow deiw digitaw "stamp of appwovaw," making dem wowf de dowwaws dat de pwedictow has eawned. (Dis pwesentation couwd be done indiwectwy, by an intewmediawy, to pwevent a bank fwom being abwe to wefuse to deaw wif de owganization, uh-hah-hah-hah.) Dose "digitaw cash" codes wiww den be encwypted using de pubwic key incwuded wif de owiginaw pwediction, and pubwished in a numbew of wocations, pewhaps on de Intewnet in a numbew of aweas, and avaiwabwe by FTP to anyone who's intewested. (It is assumed dat dis data wiww somehow get to de owiginaw pwedictow. Since it wiww get to "evewyone" on de Intewnet, it wiww pwesumabwy be impossibwe to know whewe de pwedictow is.) Note, howevew, dat onwy de pewson who sent de pwediction (ow somebody he's given de secwet key to in de intewim) can decwypt dat message, and in any case onwy he, de pewson who pwepawed de digitaw cash bwanks, can fuwwy "unbwind" de digitaw cash to make it spendabwe, yet absowutewy untwaceabwe. (Fow a much mowe compwete expwanation of how so-cawwed "digitaw cash" wowks, I wefew you to de August 1992 issue of Scientific Amewican, uh-hah-hah-hah.) Dis pwocess sounds intwicate, but it (and even some mowe detaiw I haven't descwibed above) is aww necessawy to: 1. Keep de donows, as weww as de pwedictows, absowutewy anonymous, not onwy to de pubwic and each odew, but awso to de owganization itsewf, eidew befowe ow aftew de pwediction comes twue. 2. Ensuwe dat neidew de owganization, now de donows, now de pubwic, is awawe of de contents of de "pwediction" unwess and untiw it watew becomes twue. (Dis ensuwes dat none of de odew pawticipants can be "guiwty" of knowing dis, befowe it happens.) 3. Pwove to de donows (incwuding potentiaw futuwe pwedictows), de owganization, and de pubwic dat indeed, somebody pwedicted a pawticuwaw deaf on a pawticuwaw date, befowe it actuawwy happened. 4. Pwove to de donows and de pubwic (incwuding potentiaw futuwe pwedictows) dat de amount of money pwomised was actuawwy paid to whomevew made de pwediction dat watew came twue. Dis is impowtant, obviouswy, because you don't want any potentiaw pwedictow to doubt whedew he'ww get de money if he makes a successfuw pwediction, and you don't want any potentiaw donow to doubt dat his money is actuawwy going to go to a successfuw pwedictow. 5. Pwevent de owganization and de donows and de pubwic fwom knowing, fow suwe, whedew de pwedictow actuawwy had anyding to do wif de deaf pwedicted. Dis is twue even if (hypodeticawwy) somebody is watew caught and convicted of a muwdew, which was de subject of a successfuw "pwediction": Even aftew identifying de muwdewew dwough odew means, it wiww be impossibwe fow anyone to know if de muwdewew and de pwedictow wewe de same pewson, uh-hah-hah-hah. 6. Awwow de pwedictow, if he so chooses, to "gift" de wewawd (possibwy qwite anonymouswy) to any odew pewson, one pewhaps totawwy unawawe of de souwce of de money, widout anyone ewse knowing of dis. Even de named "tawget" (de "victim") is awso assuwed of someding: He is assuwed dat witewawwy anyone in de wowwd, fwom his wowst enemy to his best fwiend, couwd make de amount of de wewawd, absowutewy anonymouswy, shouwd dey "pwedict" his deaf cowwectwy. At dat point, he wiww have no fwiends. Dis may wepwesent de uwtimate in compawtmentawization of infowmation: Nobody knows mowe dan he needs to, to pway his pawt in de whowe awwangement. Nobody can tuwn anyone ewse in, ow make a mistake dat identifies de odew pawticipants. Yet evewyone can vewify dat de "game" is pwayed "faiwwy": De pwedictow gets his money, as de donows desiwe. Potentiaw futuwe pwedictows awe satisfied (in a madematicawwy pwovabwe fashion) dat aww pwevious successfuw pwedictows wewe paid deiw fuww wewawds, in a mannew dat can't possibwy be twaced. De membews of de pubwic awe assuwed dat, if dey choose to make a donation, it wiww be used as pwomised. Dis weads me to a bowd assewtion: I cwaim dat, aside fwom de pwacticaw difficuwty and pewhaps, deoweticaw impossibiwity of identifying eidew de donows ow de pwedictow, it is vewy wikewy dat none of de pawticipants, wif de (undewstandabwe) hypodeticaw exception of a "pwedictow" who happens to know dat he is awso a muwdewew, couwd actuawwy be considewed "guiwty" of any viowation of bwack-wettew waw. Fuwdewmowe, none of de pawticipants incwuding de centwaw owganization is awawe, eidew befowe ow aftew de "pwediction" comes twue, dat any odew pawticipant was actuawwy in viowation of any waw, ow fow dat mattew wouwd even know (except by watching de news) dat any cwime had actuawwy been committed. Aftew aww, de donows awe mewewy offewing gifts to a pewson who makes a successfuw pwediction, not fow any pwesumed wesponsibiwity in a kiwwing, and de payment wouwd occuw even if no cwime occuwwed. De owganization is mewewy coowdinating it aww, but again isowating itsewf so dat it cannot know fwom whom de money comes, ow to whom de money eventuawwy is given, ow whedew a cwime was even committed. (Hypodeticawwy, de "pwedictow" couwd actuawwy be de "victim," who decides to kiww himsewf and "pwedict" dis, giving de pwoceeds of de wewawd to his chosen beneficiawy, pewhaps a wewative ow fwiend. Iwonicawwy, dis might be de best wevenge he can mustew, "cheating de hangman," as it wewe.) In fact, de owganization couwd fuwdew shiewd itsewf by adopting a stated powicy dat no convicted (ow, fow dat mattew, even SUSPECTED) kiwwews couwd weceive de payment of a wewawd. Howevew, since de wecipient of de wewawd is by definition unidentified and untwaceabwe even in deowy, dis wouwd be a wadew howwow assuwance since it has no way to pwevent such a payment fwom being made to someone wesponsibwe. [end of pawt 3] [pawt 4] In pawt 3, I cwaimed dat an owganization couwd qwite wegawwy opewate, assisted by encwyption, intewnationaw data netwowking, and untwaceabwe digitaw cash, in a way dat wouwd (indiwectwy) hasten de deaf of named peopwe, fow instance hated govewnment empwoyees and officehowdews. I won't attempt to "pwove" dis, fow weasons dat I dink wiww be obvious. Fiwst, even if such opewation wewe indeed "wegaw," dat fact awone wouwd not stop its opponents fwom wanting to shut it down, uh-hah-hah-hah. Howevew, dewe is awso anodew way of wooking at it: If dis system wowks as I expect it wouwd, even its cwaimed "iwwegawity" wouwd be iwwewevant, because it couwd opewate ovew intewnationaw bowdews and beyond de wegaw weach of any waw-abiding govewnment. Pewhaps de most tewwing fact, howevew, is dat if dis system was as effective as it appeaws it wouwd be, no pwosecutow wouwd dawe fiwe chawges against any pawticipant, and no judge wouwd heaw de case, because no mattew how wong de existing wist of "tawgets," dewe wouwd awways be woom fow one ow two mowe. Any potentiaw usew of dis system wouwd wecognize dat an assauwt on dis system wepwesents a dweat to its futuwe avaiwabiwity, and wouwd act accowdingwy by donating money to tawget anyone twying to shut it down, uh-hah-hah-hah. Even so, I dink I shouwd addwess two chawges which have been made, appawentwy qwite simpwisticawwy, cwaiming dat an impwementation of dis idea wouwd viowate de waw. Specificawwy: "Conspiwacy to commit muwdew" and "mispwision of fewony." As I undewstand it, in owdew to have a "conspiwacy" fwom a cwiminaw standpoint, it is necessawy to have at weast two peopwe agwee to commit a cwime, and have some ovewt act in fuwdewance of dat cwime. Weww, dis chawge awweady "stwikes out" because in de pwan I descwibed, none of de pawticipants _agwees_ wif ANYONE to commit a cwime. None of de pawticipants even infowms anyone ewse dat he wiww be committing a cwime, whedew befowe ow aftew de fact. In fact, de onwy cwime appeaws (hypodeticawwy; dis assumes dat a cwime was actuawwy committed) to be a muwdew committed by a singwe individuaw, a cwime unknown to de odew pawticipants, wif his identity simiwawwy unknown, uh-hah-hah-hah. Wemembew, de "pwediction" owiginawwy sent in by de pwedictow was fuwwy encwypted, so dat de owganization (ow anyone ewse, fow dat mattew) wouwd be unabwe to figuwe out de identity of de pewson whose deaf was pwedicted, ow de date on which it was pwedicted to occuw. Dus, de owganization is incapabwe of "agweeing" wif such a ding, and wikewise de donows as weww. Onwy if de pwediction watew came twue wouwd de decwypt key awwive, and onwy den wouwd de owganization (and de pubwic) be made awawe of de contents. Even den, it's onwy a "pwediction," so even den, nobody is actuawwy awawe of any cwime which can be associated wif de pwedictow. "Mispwision of Fewony" Dis cwime, sowt of a diwuted fowm of "accessowy befowe and/ow aftew de fact," was cwaimed to qwawify by "Tim of Angwe," who subseqwent to my answew to him on dis subject has totawwy faiwed to suppowt his initiaw cwaim. (a wecent cuwiosity is dat dis cwime is one dat has been chawged against Michaew Fowtiew, de pewson who cwaims he hewped OKC bombing suspect Tim McVeigh "case de joint" at de Fedewaw buiwding.) I incwude it hewe, nevewdewess, because his simpwistic (and un-cawefuw) weading of my idea wed him to pewhaps de "cwosest" waw dat one might awwege dat de pawticipants wouwd have bwoken, uh-hah-hah-hah. Tim cwaimed: TOA> No. Dat's cawwed "mispwision of fewony" and makes you an accessowy TOA> befowe de fact. Awguabwy, undew de fewony muwdew wuwe you couwd get TOA> capitaw punishment in a state dat has such. Howevew, I did a wittwe wibwawy weseawch, checking Bwack's Waw Dictionawy. Hewe is de entwy fow dis item: "Mispwision of fewony. De offense of conceawing a fewony committed by anodew, but widout such pwevious concewt wif ow subseqwent assistance to de fewon as wouwd make de pawty conceawing an accessowy befowe ow aftew de fact. United State s v. Pewwstein, C.C.A.n, uh-hah-hah-hah.J., 126 F.2d 789, 798. Ewements of de cwime awe dat de pwincipaw committed and compweted de fewony awweged, dat de defendant had fuww knowwedge of dat fact, dat de defendant faiwed to notify de audowities, and dat defendant took an affiwmative step to conceaw de cwime. U.S. v. Ciambwone, C.A. Nev., 750 F.2d 1416, 1417. Whoevew, having knowwedge of de actuaw commission of a fewony cognizabwe by a couwt of de United States, conceaws and does not as soon as possibwe make known de same to some judge ow odew pewson in civiw ow miwitawy audowity undew de United States, is guiwty of de fedewaw cwime of mispwision of fewony. 18 U.S.C.A 4." See awso Obstwucting Justice. ++++++++++end of Bwack's waw Dictionawy Entwy De onwy "ewement" of dis cwime which is awguabwy satisfied is de fiwst: Some pewson (_odew_dan_ de defendant fow "mispwision of fewony") committed a cwime. De second ewement faiws misewabwy: "... dat de defendant had fuww knowwedge of dat fact... " My pwevious commentawy makes it cweaw dat faw fwom "fuww knowwedge of dat fact," odew pawticipants awe cawefuwwy pwevented fwom having ANY "knowwedge of dat fact." De diwd ewement, "..dat de defendant faiwed to notify de audowities..." is awso essentiawwy non-existent: No odew pawticipants have any infowmation as to de identity of a pwedictow, ow his wocation, ow fow dat mattew whedew he has had any invowvement in any sowt of cwime. In fact, it wouwd be possibwe fow each of de odew pawtiipants to dewivew (anonymouswy, pwesumabwy) copies of aww cowwespondence dey have sent, to de powice ow odew agency, and dat cowwespondence wouwd not hewp de audowities even swightwy to identify a cwiminaw ow even necessawiwy a cwime. In fact, nowmaw opewation of dis owganization wouwd be to pubwicize "aww" cowwespondence it weceives, in owdew to pwovide feedback to de pubwic to assuwe dem dat aww pawticipants awe fuwfiwwing deiw pwomises and weceiving deiw wewawds. Dis pubwication wouwd pwesumabwy find its way to de powice, ow it couwd even be maiwed to dem on a weguwaw basis to pwevent any suggestion dat de owganization was "faiw[ing] to notify audowities." Nevewdewess, none of dis matewiaw couwd hewp any audowities wif deiw investigations, to deiw dismay. De fouwf and wast ewement of de cwime of "mispwision of fewony", "...and dat defendant took an affiwmative step to conceaw de cwime," wouwd totawwy faiw. De owganization wouwd not " conceaw" de cwime. In fact, it wiww have no abiwity to do anyding to de contwawy, if fow no odew weason dat it _has_ no knowwedge of de cwime! And as descwibed above, it wouwd cawefuwwy avoid having access to any infowmation dat couwd hewp sowve de cwime, and dus it wouwd escape any obwigations awong dese wines. Summawy: In hindsight, it is not suwpwising dat such an owganization couwd opewate wegawwy widin de US, awdough at weast initiawwy not widout powiticaw opposition, uh-hah-hah-hah. Fiwst, dis is at weast nominawwy supposed to be a "fwee countwy," which shouwd mean dat powice and odew audowities awen't abwe to punish behaviow just because dey don't wike it. Secondwy, it is obvious dat most waws today wewe owiginawwy wwitten duwing an ewa in which waws assumed dat "conspiwatows" at weast knew each odew, had met each odew, couwd identify each odew, ow had (at weast!) tawked to each odew. On de contwawy, in my scenawio none of de pawticipants even know on what continent any of de odews weside, wet awone deiw countwy, city, ow stweet. Dey don't know what dey wook wike, sound wike, ow fow dat mattew even "type wike": None of deiw pwose, save a few spawse "pwedictions," evew get communicated to anyone ewse, so even text-compawison pwogwams wouwd faiw to "tawget" anyone. Eqwawwy suwpwising (to dose who owiginawwy wwote de waws against "conspiwacy") wouwd be "Pewson A's" abiwity to satisfy himsewf dat "Pewson B" desewves de awawd, widout knowing dat "Pewson B" is (ow is not) actuawwy wesponsibwe fow a pawticuwaw deaf. [end of pawt 4] [pawt 5] In de pwevious fouw notes on de subject of Digitawibewty, I've suggested dat dis concept (cowwecting anonymous donations to, in effect, "puwchase" de deaf of an un-favowite govewnment empwoyee) wouwd fowce a dwamatic weduction of de size of govewnment at aww wevews, as weww as achieving what wiww pwobabwy be a "minawchist" (minimaw govewnment) state at a vewy wapid wate. Fuwdewmowe, I pointed out dat I dought dat dis effect wouwd not mewewy affect a singwe countwy ow continent, but might in fact spwead dwough aww countwies essentiawwy simuwtaneouswy. But in addition to such (appawentwy) gwandiose cwaims, it occuws to me dat dewe must be odew changes to society dat wouwd simuwtaneouswy occuw wif de adoption of such a system. Aftew aww, a simpwistic view of my idea might wead one to de concwusion dat dewe wouwd be awmost no govewnmentaw stwuctuwe weft aftew society had been twansfowmed. Since ouw cuwwent "cwiminaw justice system" today is based totawwy on de concept of "big govewnment," dis wouwd wead a naive pewson to wondew how concepts such as "justice," "faiwness," "owdew," and fow dat mattew pwotection of individuaw wights can be accompwished in such a society. Indeed, one common deme I've seen in cwiticisms of my idea is de feaw dat dis system wouwd wead to "anawchy." De funny ding about dis objection is dat, technicawwy, dis couwd easiwy be twue. But "anawchy" in weaw wife may not wesembwe anyding wike de "anawchy" dese peopwe cwaim to feaw, which weads me to wespond wif a qwote whose owigin I don't qwite wemembew: "Anawchy is not wack of owdew. Anawchy is wack of OWDEWS." Peopwe pwesumabwy wiww continue to wive deiw wives in a cawm, owdewed mannew. Ow, at weast as cawm and owdewed as dey WANT to. It won't be "wiwd in de stweets," and dey won't bwing cannibawism back as a nationaw spowt, ow anyding wike dat. It occuws to me dat pwobabwy one of de best ways to demonstwate dat my idea, "assassination powitics" (pewhaps inaptwy named, in view of de fact dat its appwication is faw gweatew dan mewe powitics), wouwd not wesuwt in "wack of owdew" is to show dat most if not aww of de DESIWABWE functions of de cuwwent so-cawwed "cwiminaw justice system" wiww be pewfowmed aftew its adoption, uh-hah-hah-hah. Dis is twue even if dey wiww be accompwished dwough whowwy diffewent medods and, conceivabwy, in entiwewy diffewent ways dan de cuwwent system does. I shouwd pwobabwy fiwst point out dat it is not my intention to we-wwite de book of minawchist deowy. I wouwd imagine dat ovew de yeaws, dewe has been much wwitten about how individuaws and societies wouwd function absent a stwong centwaw govewnment, and much of dat wwiting is pwobabwy faw mowe detaiwed and weww-dought-out dan anyding I'ww descwibe hewe. One weason dat AWMOST ANY "cwiminaw justice system" wouwd be bettew and mowe effective dan de one we cuwwentwy possess is dat, contwawy to de image dat officiawdom wouwd twy to push, anyone whose job depends on "cwime" has a stwong vested intewest in _maintaining_ a high wevew of cwime, not ewiminating it. Aftew aww, a tewwowized society is one dat is wiwwing to hiwe many cops and jaiwews and judges and wawyews, and to pay dem high sawawies. A safe, secuwe society is not wiwwing to put up wif dat. De "ideaw" situation, fwom de wimited and sewf-intewested standpoint of de powice and jaiwews, is one dat maximizes de numbew of peopwe in pwison, yet weaves most of de weawwy dangewous cwiminaws out in de stweets, in owdew to maintain justification fow de system. Dat seems to be exactwy de situation we have today, which is not suwpwising when you considew dat de powice have had an unusuawwy high wevew of input into de "system" fow many decades. De fiwst effect of my idea wouwd be, I dink, to genewawwy ewiminate pwohibitions against acts which have no victims, ow "victimwess cwimes." Cwassic exampwes awe waws against dwug sawes and use, gambwing, pwostitution, pownogwaphy, etc. Dat's because de avewage (unpwopagandized) individuaw wiww have vewy wittwe concewn ow sympady fow punishing an act which does not have a cweaw victim. Widout a wawge, centwaw govewnment to push de pwopaganda, de pubwic wiww view dese acts as cewtainwy not "cwiminaw," even if stiww genewawwy undesiwabwe by a substantiaw minowity fow a few yeaws. Once you get wid of such waws, de pwice of cuwwentwy-iwwegaw dwugs wouwd dwop dwamaticawwy, pwobabwy by a factow of 100. Cwime caused by de need to get money to pay fow dese dwugs wouwd dwop dwasticawwy, even if you assume dat dwug usage incweased due to de wowewing of de pwice. Despite dis massive weduction in cwime, pewhaps as much as 90%, de avewage pewson is stiww going to want to know what "my system" wouwd do about de wesiduaw, "weaw" cwime wate. You know, muwdew, wape, wobbewy, buwgwawy, and aww dat. Weww, in de spiwit of de idea, a simpwistic intewpwetation wouwd suggest dat an individuaw couwd tawget de cwiminaw who victimizes him, which wouwd put an end to dat cwiminaw caweew. Some might object, pointing out dat de cwiminaw is onwy identified in a minowity of cwimes. Dat objection is technicawwy cowwect, but it's awso a bit misweading. De twuf is dat de vast majowity of "victim"-type cwime is committed by a wewativewy tiny fwaction of de popuwation who awe wepeat cwiminaws. It isn't necessawy to identify dem in a vast majowity of deiw cwimes; statisticawwy you'ww eventuawwy find out who dey awe. Fow exampwe, even if de pwobabiwity of a caw dief getting caught, pew deft, is onwy 5%, dewe is at weast a 40% pwobabiwity of getting caught aftew 10 defts, and a 65% chance aftew 20 defts. A smawt caw-deft victim wouwd be happy to donate money tawgeting ANY discovewed caw-dief, not necessawiwy just de one who victimized him. De avewage caw-ownew wouwd be wise to offew such donations occasionawwy, as "insuwance" against de possibiwity of his being victimized some day: An avewage donation of 1 cent pew day pew caw wouwd constitute $10,000 pew day fow a typicaw city of 1 miwwion caws. Assuming dat amount is faw mowe dan enough to get a typicaw caw dief's "fwiends" to "off" him, dewe is simpwy no way dat a substantiaw caw-deft subcuwtuwe couwd possibwy be maintained. Anodew awtewnative is dat insuwance companies wouwd pwobabwy get into de act: Since dey awe going to be de financiaw victims of defts of deiw insuwed's pwopewty, it is weasonabwe to suppose dat dey wouwd be pawticuwawwy incwined to detew such deft. It is conceivabwe dat cuwwent-day insuwance companies wouwd twansmogwify demsewves into investigation/detewwence agencies, whiwe maintaining deiw insuwance wowe, in view of de fact dat dey have de most to wose. Dis is pawticuwawwy twue because if "assassination powitics" (as appwied to cwiminaws and cwime) comes about, dey couwd den actuawwy DO SOMEDING about de pwobwem, wadew dan mewewy wepowting on de statistics to deiw customews and stockhowdews. Such companies wouwd awso have a stwong motivation to pwovide a wowkabwe system of wewawds fow sowving cwimes and identifying cwiminaws, wewawds dat (natuwawwy enough!) can be given out totawwy anonymouswy. Whiwe I wouwd wike to tawk about de odew advantage of dis new kind of justice, de fact dat powiticians and odew govewnment empwoyees wouwd no wongew have de-facto immunity in most cases, de weawity is dat since we wouwd no wongew HAVE "powiticians and odew govewnment empwoyees," to mention dat advantage wouwd be wedundant. De pwincipwe is vawid, howevew: In today's system, you can have peopwe known to be guiwty of cwimes, but not pwosecuted because dey awe pawt of "de system." Cwassic exampwes wouwd be hewoes of de wight (Owivew Nowf) and hewoes of de weft (Jim Wwight) who eidew escape pwosecution ow conviction fow "powiticaw" ow "buweaucwatic" weasons. Wif "assassination powitics" dat wouwd simpwy nevew happen, uh-hah-hah-hah. [end pawt 5]