Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:56 PM, Tim May wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:40 PM, 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.
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."
Members of the IRA are not freedom fighters in a communist-controlled country. bin Laden did fall under that definition when he was fighting to get the Russians out of Afghanistan but that was a long time ago. Now he's opposing American influence in Saudi Arabia. Some developers may nevertheless sympathize politically with such these groups and so could work on technology for them with a clear conscience.
"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.
The point is that those who will pay large sums to acquire access to these technologies, even for the purpose of overthrowing an evil regime, are not doing it out of altruism. They're not good-guy libertarians who only want to set up a John Galt state. Realistically they're more likely to be interested in taking over the reins of power themselves. And it's pretty questionable to salve your conscience by saying that even if these guys use the tools to bad ends, someone else will then be able to use the same tools against them. The problem is, we're doing this for profit, right? We won't give the tools away once the first generation uses them to take over. We should sell them to the highest bidder. (Better to think of a service than a tool here. Most cypherpunk technologies require a distributed infrastructure that you can charge for.) The high bidders are once again going to be the bad guys who want to take over for selfish reasons.
"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....
Pray tell, who exactly will pay large sums to be able to distribute birth control information in Islamic countries?
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."
This is trivial; the same can be said for any technology. It is the users and implementors who are moral actors, and that is who we are considering.
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.
Fine, if the only point you want to make is that costs must be considered. But eventually we need to move beyond that simplistic analysis. At that point we do need to consider morality and other issues.
You want to add "morality" to the chart. Fine, except I don't see how it gives different answers than my chart gave.
The answers it gives depends on the questions you ask. If your questions are simple enough (untraceability good?) then your chart will answer them. If your questions are more interesting (what technologies can be practically implemented and make a positive difference in the world) then you need a better chart.
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Nomen Nescio wrote:
The point is that those who will pay large sums to acquire access to these technologies, even for the purpose of overthrowing an evil regime, are not doing it out of altruism. They're not good-guy libertarians who only want to set up a John Galt state. Realistically they're more likely to be interested in taking over the reins of power themselves.
And it's pretty questionable to salve your conscience by saying that even if these guys use the tools to bad ends, someone else will then be able to use the same tools against them. The problem is, we're doing this for profit, right? We won't give the tools away once the first generation uses them to take over. We should sell them to the highest bidder. (Better to think of a service than a tool here. Most cypherpunk technologies require a distributed infrastructure that you can charge for.) The high bidders are once again going to be the bad guys who want to take over for selfish reasons.
Jeesus that's naive. What makes you think that new regime who used your tool to take over won't then shoot you and take 'your profits'. By participating you may in fact be signing your own death warrant. The highest bidders are going to be the ones with the most money at the tiem of the auction. Whether they gained that money by selfish/altruistic or good/bad reasons is relativistic. Further, to assume that the profits go to the 'bad guys w/ selfish reasons' a priori is just begging the question. Or is your thesis that the optimal market strategy is to be a 'bad guy w/ selfish reasons'? If so, you need to review that Galtian utopia. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
-- On 28 Aug 2001, at 7:13, Jim Choate wrote:
What makes you think that new regime who used your tool to take over won't then shoot you and take 'your profits'. By participating you may in fact be signing your own death warrant.
All the liberty that there is in the world today results from the Dutch revolt, the Glorious Revolution, and the American Revolution. No oppressive regimes, with the exception of the Chinese, were produced by revolution. Every successful revolution has been a major step forward for human liberty (the Russian communist revolution was not a revolution, but merely a coup by a little conspiracy. Same for the Sandinista revolution). Even in revolutions that failed, like the french, were the old system was swiftly restored by Napoleon, the power of the old regime was fatally undermined. The outcome of the recent revolutions in Somalia and Ethiopia may be piss poor by Western standards, but compared to the rest of Africa they are pretty good, and compared to the previous regimes, they are wonderful. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG bstOJvcE7yZ9wE8/TgMBfXDE6jExhrBCsGAb/NnK 4Y74xyXZqu/wy4YGqo28RkMUFEWDhUUMk7L9BBPRe
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote: <much snippage>
(the Russian communist revolution was not a revolution, but merely a coup by a little conspiracy. Same for the Sandinista revolution).
I'm curious how you draw the line? I.e., what defines a genuine revolution as opposed to a "mere" coup? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
-- James A. Donald:
(the Russian communist revolution was not a revolution, but merely a coup by a little conspiracy. Same for the Sandinista revolution).
measl@mfn.org
I'm curious how you draw the line? I.e., what defines a genuine revolution as opposed to a "mere" coup?
A revolution involves mass participation, and widespread spontaneous defiance of state authority. A coup involves a tiny little secretive conspiracy. A coup is announced, a revolution experienced. Few proletarians in Russia had heard of the communists, until they learnt they were the government. There was a real revolution in Russia, but many people felt the revolution had failed, since the new government was still trying to prosecute the war, and was still dominated by the rather small group that had been dominant under the Tzar. Then there was a coup by an even smaller group against this new regime. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG OB/GOuA4JAkfxP4knqOf5CtzmUwMdXLvcPtU4zod 4lAQXXdyE53P/QtVYnhCF2kjXLT0G14uFiMkmFHZE
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
A revolution involves mass participation, and widespread spontaneous defiance of state authority.
A revolution is when one part of a populace takes up arms against another part of the populace. The argument is over who gets the final say. It's worth saying that there are actually a wide range of shades to this word (eg rebellion v revolt v mutiny).
A coup involves a tiny little secretive conspiracy.
A coup is the sudden overthrow of a government by force. It may be by a small fraction or a large one.
A coup is announced,
Yeah, when the guns start going off...
a revolution experienced.
Yeah, when the guns start going off... -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
-- James A. Donald:
A revolution [unlike a mere coup] involves mass participation, and widespread spontaneous defiance of state authority.
Jim Choate wrote:
A revolution is when one part of a populace takes up arms against another part of the populace.
When Hitler authorized Krystalnacht, that was a revolution? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 2SpGz0TiMYvSrzuctmijLs95p4tWle7YBcUpgmPG 4QLxYirnCv7EV53IoXrE0Qh8sQAp/NDwjVjknmJ9y
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
When Hitler authorized Krystalnacht, that was a revolution?
No, that was the consequence of one that had already worked. They were just cleaning up the left overs. Had Hitler not already won the power then it wouldn't have been necessary. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Jim Choate:
A revolution is when one part of a populace takes up arms against another part of the populace.
James A. Donald:
When Hitler authorized Krystalnacht, that was a revolution?
Jim Choate:
No, that was the consequence of one that had already worked.
Hitler won an election. Elections are not revolutions. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG kkhXI4hlswmw7ZHloO1eOp3cArJKup7XBtIQKClP 4EaEwV+7Cy3c4IADhTCdWkFZF1eOQINh++poiAhVB
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Jim Choate:
No, that was the consequence of one that had already worked.
Hitler won an election. Elections are not revolutions.
Actually it was the consequence of winning an election. getting a particularly important appointment, AND getting the military to swear an oath to HIM (not Germany). The election alone didn't make him Fuhrer or give him the political and legal base to execute his murders with impunity. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
James A. Donald: -- James A. Donald:
Hitler won an election. Elections are not revolutions.
Jim Choate
The election alone didn't make him Fuhrer
The fact that a majority voted for totalitarianism and plurality voted for Hitler did make him fuhrer. And regardless of what made him Fuhrer, it was not a revolution. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG RpelMIrX2K4QW9RrV+FQSoasyeDmQ2AZiYJRqChp 4ZIDF43ciehEL5FHHjzW8DkYtOVIkC89UFJ3r8Y4c
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
And regardless of what made him Fuhrer, it was not a revolution.
It wasn't? They passed a law moving all the presidents power to Hitler against the constitution. Then they got the military to swear an oath to Hitler, not Germany. In other words in the space of two years they went from a democracy to a tyranny. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
-- James A. Donald:
And regardless of what made him Fuhrer, it was not a revolution.
Jim Choate:
It wasn't? They passed a law moving all the presidents power to Hitler against the constitution.
"They passed a law" is not a revolution, even if the law was unconstitutional, and it was far more plausibly constitutional than many recent acts of congress and recent supreme court decisions. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG sCjb3FyPkIA3ccCv1Edyms5TE8T8r5azQl1n/vTC 4ZUWu+8KwHCZrQsD98OEVKe12WiTrkmV15ORw/BkG
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
All the liberty that there is in the world today results from the Dutch revolt, the Glorious Revolution, and the American Revolution. No oppressive regimes, with the exception of the Chinese, were produced by revolution.
The Chinese are STILL in a revolution you twit - Taiwan.
Every successful revolution has been a major step forward for human liberty (the Russian communist revolution was not a revolution, but merely a coup by a little conspiracy. Same for the Sandinista revolution).
Africa (eg DRC), Pole Pot, Idi Amin, Shah, Mujahadin, E. Timor ... Recasting history to suite yourself won't fly. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 11:20 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:56 PM, Tim May wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:40 PM, 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.
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."
Members of the IRA are not freedom fighters in a communist-controlled country. bin Laden did fall under that definition when he was fighting to get the Russians out of Afghanistan but that was a long time ago. Now he's opposing American influence in Saudi Arabia.
Your reading comprehension sucks. I gave half a dozen _examples_, one of them "freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes" and you assume this is the only kind of freedom fighter being talked about. No point in carrying on a conversation with this breathtaking display of literalism. --Tim May
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 08:20:12AM +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
be able to use the same tools against them. The problem is, we're doing this for profit, right? We won't give the tools away once the first generation uses them to take over. We should sell them to the highest bidder.
Methinks N.N. might want to learn the difference between proprietary tools and general technologies. -Declan
participants (7)
-
Declan McCullagh -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate
-
measl＠mfn.org -
Nomen Nescio -
Tim May