Crime and punishment in cyberspace - 3 of 3
All this brings us to a related issue - another one hinging on principles: Do cypherpunks accept the need for wiretapping? Wiretapping is necessary to solve many 'crimes'. If we accept that these crimes are important enough to justify wiretapping, than there is little difference between wiretapping analog phones and tapping data. The EFF and other organizations have pursued the laudable goals of extending laws guaranteeing freedom of expression, privacy etc to cyberspace, adapting them, as and where necessary, to the nature and technology of digital networks. It is only to be expected that the FBI, theoretically a socially agreed upon body enforcing laws made by socially agreed upon legislators, to attempt to extend the powers granted to it for wiretapping to cyberspace. _Adapting them, as and where necessary (eg. digital encryption), to the nature and technology of digital networks. If we accept the need for wiretapping, than the only problem is to find a way to make Clipper/DTII as protective of privacy as current analog-tapping laws; as inconvenient as current analog tapping. If we accept the need for wiretapping, we can find such ways. Variants of Micali's fair crypto; an open, publicly available no-trapdoor algorithm; a requirement that, as with primitive exchanges, DTII'd ones would still have to be visited by LEOs to work a tap, etc. We can then respond to the various (non-serious) calls from Freeh, Denning et al for an 'alternative'. Or else, if wiretapping per se does more harm to privacy than it does to crime, call for an end to wiretapping altogether. There is an anecdote about George Bernard Shaw (or Bertrand Russell?): At a social event, he hypothetically asks the lady next to him whether she would sleep with him for a million pounds. For a million pounds, she says, she migh consider it. "Would you sleep with me for sixpence, then?" he asks. Outraged, she replies "What kind of woman do you think I am?" His response: "We have already established what kind of woman you are. We are just haggling about the price." Rishab (ps. no offence intended -- that's an illustratory anecdote, c'est tout) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh They came for the Jews, and I was silent because I was not a Jew; rishab@dxm.ernet.in They came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not protest, because I did not Voice/Fax/Data +91 11 6853410 belong to a trade union; Voicemail +91 11 3760335 They came for the Catholics, and I said nothing because I was not a Catholic; H 34C Saket And then they came for me. New Delhi There was no one left to say anything... INDIA ----Father Niemoeller
rishab@dxm.ernet.in said:
All this brings us to a related issue - another one hinging on principles: Do cypherpunks accept the need for wiretapping?
Wiretapping is necessary to solve many 'crimes'. If we accept that these crimes are important enough to justify wiretapping, than there is little difference between wiretapping analog phones and tapping data.
As an anarchist, anarchocapitalist, crypto anarchist, etc., I prefer to think in different terms. I don't think in terms of "rights," but in terms of avoidance. Some points on wiretapping and privacy: * If I suspect someone is plotting against me--perhaps I suspect my neighbor across the street is preparing to torch my house--I'd have no problem placing microphones so as to hear him. Or bugging a girlfriend I suspected of planning to kill me for my money. (These are personal statements, to show that I'm not a moral absolutist, a believer in abstractions over practicality.) * If someone else tries to wiretap or bug me, I'll seek ways to bypass this. To fight back. * If a band of folks called "the government" seeks my vote to "allow" wiretaps and bugs, I'll generally shrug and still try to avoid such laws. (I'll admit to some ambivalence and confusion here....I can support _some_ government wiretaps, as in kidnapping cases, bomb plotters, etc., and not others. Mostly I view governments as having no more moral authority than I have, or that others have.) * If, however, governments seek my approval to pass laws making curtains illegal (because it makes surveillance harder), or requires "conversation escrow" (all conversations must be taped, with a copy of the tape filed with the police), and so on, then I will strongly oppose these laws. I don't know if this clarifies things. My preference is to avoid talking about the "right to wiretap" and instead to take steps to make it harder for a band of thugs to do so. Things will get very complicated in the next few years, as sensor technology and other privacy-invading technology gets dramatically more powerful. To name but one example, video technology and storage/search technology makes it trivially possible to place traffic-monitoring cameras ubiquitously...it makes the Chaumian issues of digicash toll payments moot. (Source on this: my brother works for City of Los Angeles traffic department....deploying high resolution cameras at intersections is one of his projects.) So, do we argue for "rights" of privacy? Or do we monkeywrench such technologies? Or do we develop tools and systems to protect our own privacy as best we can? Tough choices. Thanks to Rishab for raising these issues again. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 8-Jun-94 Re: Crime and punishment in.. by Timothy C. May@netcom.co
So, do we argue for "rights" of privacy? Or do we monkeywrench such technologies? Or do we develop tools and systems to protect our own privacy as best we can?
Tough choices.
No, easy choices. I choose D: All of the above. "We" are not a unified hive-mind. There is room for those who belive in government and who try to make it more bengin, and for those who don't participate in government and spray-paint camera lenses. Jer darklord@cmu.edu | "it's not a matter of rights / it's just a matter of war finger me for my | don't have a reason to fight / they never had one before" Geek Code and | -Ministry, "Hero" PGP public key | http://www.cs.cmu.edu:8001/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr25/jbde/
participants (3)
-
Jeremiah A Blatz -
rishab＠dxm.ernet.in -
tcmay＠netcom.com