The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Tim May]

On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:40 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Tim May writes:
>> Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools
>> for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the "far out' 
>> sweet
>> spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom 
>> fighters
>> in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control
>> information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in
>> Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad
>> governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes,
>> think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are
>> forbidden to.
>
> It is good to see some frank discussion of morality here.  Too often
> cypherpunks seem to assume that anything that can be done, should be 
> done.
>
> However on closer examination it's not clear that many of the examples
> above satisfy both financial and moral constraints.
>
> "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."

(Note that I am _not_ saying they are likely to start using a student 
project remailer operating out of dorm room in Schenectady. A different 
issue.)

> "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.

> "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....

>
> 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."

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.

You want to add "morality" to the chart. Fine, except I don't see how it 
gives different answers than my chart gave.


--Tim May