CDR: Re: Comments on and about e-privacy in Canada

[Tim May]

At 1:55 AM -0400 10/8/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
>I do hope Robert thinks through this. Or maybe this is another 
>example of cypherpunk thinking not meshing well with Canada. Austin 
>of ZKS spoke Wednesday here in DC, and his comments are relayed to 
>me from another speaker who is sympathetic to his position:
>
>>Austin H. made an interesting point this morning
>>at the WSJ Tech Summit. He pointed out that for
>>all the grumbling about government rules, no
>>hi-tech CEO would seriously recommend abolishing
>>the SEC.
>
>Perhaps. But some cypherpunks might argue for it, in the stronger 
>case, or in the weaker, simply argue that the SEC will become less 
>and less relevant.

"O'Brien pointed out that for all the grumbling about the rules for 
writers imposed by the Ministry of Truth, not one of the accredited 
writers and publishers would seriously recommend abolishing MiniTru."

He went on to say,

"To do so would be to bring on "literary anarchy," with no control 
over top-down reputations, no recourse for incorrect thoughts, and 
the spread of peer-to-peer, aka prole-to-prole, communications."

Back to our reality...

The SEC has valid _contractual enforcement_ roles. I haven't worked 
out all the details, but I'm sure a free market rating/credentially 
agency could handle most of the chores, with various forms of private 
law (polymorphic law, a la Benson's "The Enterprise of Law, circa 
1990-91). Caveat emptor...it's not as though we're not flooded with 
plenty of information on which to base decisions.

Most of what the SEC does is not too terribly unlibertarian, though 
some of the recent moves to make "financial advisors" more 
"accountable" is disturbing. Even opinions expressed on bulletin 
boards and chat rooms and newsgroups may soon come under their 
control...so much for the First Amendment. "("It's for the 
investors!")

However, I don't get the thrust of Austin's comments. Perhaps he'll 
read this and add some detail.

Certainly the practical effect of a _real_ 2-way anonymous 
communication system will be to basically _gut_ the core of the SEC. 
Proles will be able to talk up stocks, spread rumors, all the usual 
stuff expected in a free society. (The recent case of the LA-based 
young man who shorted Emulex and then faked a press release has been 
discussed many times. In a free society, his communications could 
better be protected against traceability. On the other hand, digital 
signatures from a company would be expected. Trust the laws of 
mathematics, not the laws of men.)

If Austin is drawing conclusions that we _need_ an SEC, then perhaps 
the flaws and delays people are reporting for ZKS are indicative of a 
deeper issue. Maybe ZKS plans to make their system "meet the 
legitimate needs of law enforcement."

The Thought Police will be thrilled.


--Tim May

-- 
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon"             | black markets, collapse of governments.