"Nightmare on Crypto Street--the Return of Sun Devil"

[Peter Hendrickson]

At 11:11 AM 11/8/1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
> As I said in my "Nightmare on Crypto Street" piece, it seems that Peter
> counters every one of our counterarguments with some variant of "won't
> matter--they'll have a dozen agents and 20 MIT graduates looking for
> evidence." Or, "won't matter, the Bill of Rights will be suspended for the
> duration of the Emergency." Well, it's hard to argue with such points.

I've created some confusion with my posts which have been less than
organized.  That's a consequence of making it up as you go along.  The
dialogue has helped me to refine my thinking.  (Thanks, guys!)

This is the rough structure of my thinking:

1. Hypothetically, let's say "Nightmare on Crypto Street" happens.
  1.1 We can't guarantee this will not happen, therefore it must
      be addressed.
  1.2 This is an unlikely scenario.

2. Thus, there would be broad public support for GAK.
  2.1 By broad, I mean even many former cypherpunks would recant.

3. Broad public support makes suppression of strong cryptography
   feasible.
  3.1 And, without dramatic short term erosion of the Constitution.
  3.2 Or, a short term break down in the rule of law.
  3.3 The number of violators would be small, so resources would
      be available to do hard things.
    3.3.1 Such as having 20 MIT grads go over your house with a fine
          toothed comb.

4. What are the motivations of the GAKers?
  4.1 They appear to want to suppress strong cryptography *before*
      we there is *any* evidence of a problem.
  4.2 That is unnecessary, because if 1. occurs, it may be addressed.
  4.3 It is as easier to impose GAK after 1. occurs, rather than
      before.
  4.2 Could it be that they want to prevent the public from discovering
      the benefits of cryptoanarchy?
  4.3 Why have the GAKers failed to address the risk of a police state?
      We've seen many police states historically.  They are an
      obvious and serious risk.  The GAKers have been oddly reticent
      regarding this point.

In the future I will try to make it more clear which area I am
addressing.

I'm sure many cypherpunks feel we are just rehashing issues that were
settled long ago.  I think it never hurts to go over our assumptions
and help new people to fully understand cypherpunk ideas.

It never hurts to anticipate future moves by the GAKers, either,
even ones they haven't thought of yet.

These discussions generate ideas of how to effect the changes
we want to see.

For instance, if we develop low tech inexpensive and easy ways to
support cryptoanarchy, it makes it much harder to suppress.  The
difficulty in suppression may prevent ill-advised attempts to do so.

Also, the more we can erode the barriers between code and language,
the stronger the case is that laws governing code are violations of
the First Amendment.  What if you had a compiler that accepted English
language instructions for how to build a crypto system?  "Take a
random number 64 bits long.  Then find a prime which is a little
larger.  Then...."  The language itself should remain protected by the
First Amendment even if somebody else has a compiler which can turn it
into software.

Another conclusion we can draw is that cryptoanarchy is more of a
political issue than many of us would like.  That means we might put
more effort into public opinion than just straight coding.  (Tim may
claim otherwise, but I think he agrees with this in practice.)

It may also be that the "bad boy" image of the Cypherpunks is
counterproductive to our goals.

Many people do not know how strongly I feel that GAK is a terribly
risky policy, as I have been playing Devil's Advocate for the last
couple of days.  Given almost every situation that is likely to arise,
I am totally opposed to GAK, and not just mandatory GAK, any GAK
whatsoever.  For instance, were I given the choice between
intellectual property laws (off which I have made my living), and GAK,
I would seriously consider discarding the intellectual property laws.

It is that bad of an idea.

And, like just about everybody else, the idea that certain forms of
arithmetic could be illegal is deeply offensive in its own right.

Peter Hendrickson
ph at netcom.com