Re: Why is cryptoanarchy irreversible?
At 4:08 PM 11/7/1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
At 2:38 PM -0800 11/7/96, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
If you can get a life prison term for your strong crypto you may hesitate to use it. If not, then you may get to be an example for everybody else.
Well, this is what in private e-mail to Peter I was referring to when I said "only a police state" could pull the plug on free speech and strong crypto once it was ubiquitously deployed.
While the term "police state" is not well defined, I do not believe it applies to what I am describing. (There is a risk that it could develop, however.) Laws forbidding the use of cryptography have ominous free speech implications as we would be attempting to outlaw concealed meaning. Concealed meaning can be pretty well concealed and that makes for difficult and dangerous legal questions. On the other hand, the action of running a program which uses forbidden crypto systems is pretty unambiguous and could be effectively isolated from other kinds of speech. Many kinds of speech are already illegal. For instance, I am not allowed to copy somebody else's speech because it would violate copyright laws. I am not allowed to break verbal contracts. In essence, I am punished later for the something I said if I am forced to keep my word. But, this does not constitute a police state. What I am proposing would not require an end to fair trials or warrants or really any other legal customs we have. In case anybody has any doubts, and I doubt Tim does, the existence of a life sentence does not imply the presence of a police state.
Throwing people in prison for life for using crypto is something that is certainly _possible_, though I rather doubt taxpayers will be keen on paying for this. Simply executing those who use random numbers makes more sense.
The taxpayers will be happy to pay to keep a small number of criminals in jail if it keeps the rest of us fairly safe within our homes and on the streets.
All implausible, of course.
By the way, I've never claimed that I know crypto anarchy is irreversible, I just think it is. I've presented some plausibility arguments on why I think this is so, drawing parallels to other developments in history, but logical proofs and predictions about the future don't usually go together very well.
Actually, I agree with Tim. I think the deployment of strong cryptography will be irreversible. But, it will be irreversible because the bad aspects of it won't be all that bad and in general it will be a very positive development. The reason it must be stopped now is to stop the voters from discovering this. (Certainly we have seen a strong anti-democratic sentiment among the proponents of GAK, when they propose that we cannot even be allowed to hear the scenarios which should concern us, the ultimate repository of political legitimacy in the United States.) A good comparison can be made to the recreational drug situation. Many people, probably a majority of people, believe that they should be allowed to take whatever drugs they like and many do. Efforts have been made to forbid it, but they are almost universally unsuccessful because of the tremendous popular support for recreational drug use. Peter Hendrickson ph@netcom.com
At 5:16 PM -0800 11/7/96, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
While the term "police state" is not well defined, I do not believe it applies to what I am describing. (There is a risk that it could develop, however.)
Laws forbidding the use of cryptography have ominous free speech implications as we would be attempting to outlaw concealed meaning. Concealed meaning can be pretty well concealed and that makes for difficult and dangerous legal questions.
If the only means of detection is raiding homes to inspect them for contraband--something not even done during the height of the anti-drug hysteria, at least not on a regular basis--then I stand by my comment that stopping private use of cryptography requires a police state such as the world has not yet seen.
On the other hand, the action of running a program which uses forbidden crypto systems is pretty unambiguous and could be effectively isolated from other kinds of speech.
Oh? How? If the output of such a program looks like quantization or Johnson noise in a recording, then how could this form of "speech" be effectively isolated?
Many kinds of speech are already illegal. For instance, I am not allowed to copy somebody else's speech because it would violate copyright laws. I am not allowed to break verbal contracts. In essence, I am punished later for the something I said if I am forced to keep my word. But, this does not constitute a police state.
Careful! Some of your examples are not examples of _prohibited_ speech, but are instead examples of _actionable_ speech. The Constitution is fairly clear that the government cannot be a filter or censor for speech. Hence, requirements that people speak in English, or in some other language that the government can understand, is not required. Not even in a criminal case, as a matter of fact. (If I speak only Skansko-Bravatlian, and am the only such speaker in the world, I cannot be compelled to study English or even Spanish prior to a trial.) Requiring people to speak or write in a language that is understandable to some GS-10 at Fort Meade would appear to violate the First Amendment in a rather serious way. As encrypted speech is really just another language (tell me I'm wrong on this, anyone), encrypted speech appears to be fully protected by the First Amendment, which says that Congress shall make no law about speech, blah blah.
What I am proposing would not require an end to fair trials or warrants or really any other legal customs we have.
I strongly disagree. Prosecution would involve making certain _forms_ of speech illegal (not the same thing as the _content_ being illegal, as in ordering the kililng of another, or treason, or shouting "Fire!" improperly). And detection and collection of evidence would almost certainly involve illegal searches and seizures.
In case anybody has any doubts, and I doubt Tim does, the existence of a life sentence does not imply the presence of a police state.
Not ipso facto, but having people serving life sentences for speaking in an outlawed language certainly meets my definition of a police state. --Tim May "The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology." [NYT, 1996-10-02] We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Peter's point: If everyone in the US wants a ban on strong crypto, excepth the people on this list and the million-odd terrorists who are using strong crypto to murder, rape, pillage, etc., then strong crypto will be banned. If I understarn your point, Peter, you are correct. However, there probably won't be thousands of terrorist folks who can't be caught because of their expert use of strong crypto. I mena, half the mad bombers in the US try to get their deposit back on the vans that they used to blow up buildings. Do you think these people will be able to effectively use crypto? Furthermore, terrorrim and etc do not depend upon secure communications to work. People tend to be able to talk face-to-face in isolated environs, this is just as effective as a good public-key cryptosystem. Crypto won't suddenly protect the types of people who are professional killers/terrorists from scrutiny. It meerly would allow them to communicate securely over distances of more than 10 feet. This, IMO, is not much of a win for them. So, you're right. Given the proper conditions, strong crypto could probably be mostly stopped. However, these conditions are quite unlikely to arise. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMoNf5ckz/YzIV3P5AQHzNwL/XDr62TKhBrthrrWkS1KRv/H0yryv0EkO PErVFSHWC9YsNdON97YXD75fHrVdhpfPUfHStmJY9l7IM91RQkoozolV36Q3OwVy YOa3tEtn4TuCq3wxD2xIwaAlVWkBe0jw =gXVT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 11:29 AM -0500 11/8/96, Jeremiah A Blatz wrote:
Peter's point: If everyone in the US wants a ban on strong crypto, excepth the people on this list and the million-odd terrorists who are using strong crypto to murder, rape, pillage, etc., then strong crypto will be banned.
Yes, I think this captures the essence of Peter's straw man argument. While it's triggered a welcome change of discussion, from Vulis and such to a more interesting discussion of crypto anarchy and possible restrictions on crypto, and many of us have commented, I think the premises are weak. I also summarize Peter's set up much as you did: "Suppose the Four Horsemen ride in. Suppose planes are being shot down, buildings in every city are being blown up, people are being killed left and right by crypto-hired-killers, Sarin gas is wafting through the subways, and cats are afraid to go out at night. People will get out their pitchforks and break in the doors of their neighbors in search of the demonic crypto tools of Satan. (There's even a cracking tool _named_ Satan, so this proves the programmers need to be purified by holy fire!) The Bill of Rights will be suspennded, cops will raid homes, the military will be on the street corners, the Internet will be shut down, the government will be replaced by a Military-Religious Complex, and thought criminals will be rounded up and shot. The people will say, "Thank you" and will live happily ever after." And whenever any of us raised issues of Constitutionality of the measures Peter was predicting, such as random searches, conviction based on possession of an illegal tool, forced escrow, etc., it seemed that Peter's response was usually some variant of: "Won't matter. The people will demand action." Well, given a frightening enough scenario, a pogrom or purge or witch hunt is certainly possible, and in some countries such things have happened. The Cultural Revolution, the Islamic Revolution(s), and the extermination of a million Hutus (or Tutsis) by rival Tutsis (or Hutus) being only the most recent examples. But I think this "nightmare scenario" is implausible. Even a milder form, such as a serious Sarin gas attack which kills, say, 1,000, and in which it is discovered that the plotters used PGP to arrange things, is unlikely to provoke a suspension of the Constitution and random searches. To be sure, there would likely be _some_ violations of rights, some random searches, some overreaching by authorities, etc. But as folks were rounded up, a la Richard Jewell, and then found to have no connection to the Sarin terrorists, despite having PGP on their machines!, then the hysteria will fade. And the civil rights lawyers will be out in full force, pointing out that random searches are explicity and clearly prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, and that the First Amendment is equally explicit and clear that forms of speech may not be dictated. When the first 1000 random searches of Internet users turn up only some neutral messages, albeit encrypted with PGP in transmission, and maybe a few R-rated JPEGs of Pamela Anderson, and the courts and DAs are faced with what charges to file and how to process these "perps," the enthusiasm for random searches will fade further. And the points many of us have been making about digital commerce, the central role of the Net in so many things, and the international connections, mean that a pogrom launched against the Net just isn't going to fly. Too many corporate interests are at stake. (Even the Taliban in Kabul are finding that their purge of women from the working ranks is disastrous, as there just aren't enough survivng men to staff the hospitals, schools, and administrative functions....) The "Nightmare on Crypto Street, Part 1" scenario might make for an interesting crypto-apocalyptic screenplay, though. I vote for John Travolta playing me and Professor Irwin Corey playing Dr. Vulis. Got to find some good female roles, though. Not easy with this topic. --Tim May "The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology." [NYT, 1996-10-02] We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
participants (3)
-
Jeremiah A Blatz -
ph＠netcom.com -
Timothy C. May