Why There Exists No Middle Ground in the Crypto-policy Debate

[Anonymous]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Why There Exists No Middle Ground in the Crypto-policy Debate

[This message only appears to be posted anonymously, if you
 have the correct tools, you can learn my name and e-address.
 Take that auto-WWW indexers!]

Decius <decius at ninja.techwood.org> recently presented an essay,
entitled ``Crypto-Absolutism,'' which described ``Why and how the
middle ground should be found in the crypto-policy debate.''  The
essay is clearly wrong in its assumptions and thus its conclusions.
Given the perceived flaws in the assumptions, his commentary must be
rebutted.

Within the context of this rebuttal, ``T-Camp Cypherpunks'' are those
``Cypherpunks'' (whatever they are :-) that follow a technology
evolution-based line of reasoning to arrive at the inevitable coming
of crypto-anarchy.  As well, ``A-Camp Cypherpunks'' are those that
advocate crypto-anarchy because they like the social and political
implications.  It is possible to be an A-Camp Cypherpunk or a T-Camp
Cypherpunk without being the other.  Of course, it is quite possible
to be both.  It has often been said on Cypherpunks, that ``we'' are
not a ``we''.  Decius falls into a trap by assuming that all
Cypherpunks are in the A-Camp.  This mistake colors the entire essay.

The main problem with Decius' essay is that it assumes that
Cypherpunks _merely_ advocate crypto-anarchy.  In fact, T-Camp
Cypherpunks do not stop at this puny point.  They observe that
crypto-anarchy is the _likely_ _outcome_ of the current technology
trend (this trend is discussed below).  Note that this observation of
fulfillment, if correct, is a far stronger statement than merely
advocating that crypto-anarchy should happen or would be a really good
idea.

A-Camp Cypherpunks also advocate that this trend should be exploited
to its conclusion, sooner rather than later, to preempt any massive
government crackdowns that would only prolong the transition pains.
The rationale being that these supposed government crackdowns have no
place in the natural evolution of a free society.  And that the
continuance of a free society is preferable to that of a move towards
a police state, which would be required to facilitate the useless ---
in the end --- crackdown on this information technology.

Decius is also wrong when he states that crypto-anarchy means people
will never again be accountable or recognized (pure A-Campers might
like this to be true, although I doubt it).  In the T-Camper's view,
crypto-anarchy means that people have the choice of when they wish to
be accountable and recognized for their statements and information
movement-related actions and when they wish otherwise.  People are not
forced under the crypto-anarchy model to be unaccountable or
unrecognizable.  Likewise, the crypto-anarchy model allows people to
ignore those that are unaccountable and unrecognizable, if they wish.
Decius fails to recognize that people could be recognized, and even
paid, for example, when operating under a pseudonym instead of
completely anonymously (this concept links two Cypherpunks favorites:
untraceable anonymous e-cash and anonymous reputations).

As primary counter-points to Decius on this issue:
- - The people who wrote the Federalists' Papers did so anonymously,
  yet I suspect that all were well-known and transacted business and
  other politics under their ``real names'' most of the time.
- - Individual articles are anonymously published in the _The Economist_
  yet I suspect that people are being paid to contribute information
  to this newspaper (at least, I know I am paying a lot per year, for
  a newspaper, to get the information :-).
- - The recently released ``Primary Colors'' book by Anonymous.  Yet
  this person, if the publisher is to be believed, is well-known to
  President Clinton (I think it may all just be a good marketing scam :-).

Back to the main point of unstoppable --- in a free society, at least
- --- technology trends.  Decius has not, but must, account for the
following change due to technology: Up until now, communication system
deployers (e.g. The Phone Companies) have been basically blackmailed
(through easily applied laws and licensing) into creating systems with
backdoors for government's use.  As system intelligence moves to the
end-user devices away from the internal network devices and encryption
moves to end-to-end encryption from link-based or non-existent
encryption, this form of blackmail will no longer work since there
will no longer be a small number of easily controlled entities
building and deploying the systems.  There will be open standards for
the interconnect itself [IPng or whatever].  And anyone will be able
to implement end-user devices that layer end-to-end encryption on top
of the raw interconnect services provided by the new network model.
In some ways, we have already arrived at the new interconnect model:
the Internet based upon IP.  In the form of today's computers, we also
have a rudimentary incarnation of the required intelligent end-user
device.

In sum, I am a T-Camp Cypherpunk not because I necessarily think
crypto-anarchy is a good idea but rather because the technology trend
will continue to make it happen.  I also happen to be an A-Camp
Cypherpunk but it is for the reason that I am a T-Camper alone that I
derive that there can be no compromise on the issue of crypto-policy.
Not only would it be a bad idea to compromise, but also any compromise
will fail due to continuing changes in technology that favor
intelligence in the end-user devices and end-to-end encryption over
intelligence in the internal network components and easily controlled
encryption.  It is better to see the technology trend and embrace it
to prepare for the new crypto-anarchy to come.  ~``Those that prepare
for the change will have a lot of success, while those that ignore the
technology trend in this area will be left behind.''~  Truer words have
never been spoken.

Regards,
Loren

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMSGeTP8de8m5izJJAQFFrQP/ZQFu64mGC/u4YC7jAsnv22Cx3Eub+xVw
i3IYX7aHJopfG3g6IVifaGuEJmHxF6mZDHj+YSS/9fQfHUm7QZtoXmgmvxgWpP3s
KiUVLgYA3/cVfZn/6iOUHlQCehzj2N4IPdW2QGWbe2rbk1i1YaiGLpnB+RRXo4nW
r7mKrSVOjOQ=
=TIOb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----