The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Ken Brown]

Nomen Nescio replied to Tim May:

[...]

> You need to read your own posting more carefully:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> You yourself were the one who raised the issue of morality.
> Your examples were intended to be cases of "sweet spot" (that is,
> profitable) applications which were also morally acceptable.  It is
> entirely appropriate in that context to examine whether these examples
> meet the test of both being profitable and moral.

[...]

You miss the point. All that is needed is for someone, somewhere, to
find these things desirable. It doesn't have to be you or me. We might
think they are immoral but that changes nothing in practice. Or do you
think that Muslims or Socialists or Greens or Zionists or the IRA or the
CIA or the ETA or Presbyterians or Monsanto or whoever *you* dislike
this week are incapable of choosing technology appropriate to their own
perception of their needs?
 
> When you were asked where were all the supposed wealthy freedom fighters
> in communist controlled regimes, you came back with Osama bin Laden.
> 
> Do you think that bin Laden, if he succeeded, would bring in an era of
> enlightened government supporting individual liberties?  The man is a
> religious fanatic.  He is associated with the Taliban in Afghanistan,
> which he helped put into power.  This is the same Taliban which has
> destroyed priceless cultural treasures because they were not Islamic,
> forbids women to work or attend school, and sends armed police to attack
> when men and women eat in the same room behind closed doors.
> Oh, and last week they banned the Internet.

All true, they are shits. And violent, well-armed, cruel, frightened,
shits at that. But, in this context,  so what?
 
> Osama bin Laden, a perfect poster child for the cypherpunks.

Said who? Actually he is a bit of a bogeyman & 90% of what he is accused
of is just US propaganda looking for a new enemy to justify the
continuation of cold-war military budgets - but there are other guys,
like the Taliban, who really are that  nasty - one of the endearingly
cute things about US politics is that you get collectively confused when
people don't like you so you assume they are being duped by evil
criminal masterminds, so you find it much easier to deal with the
concept of a Dark Lord in the East than you do with the idea that
millions of people actually hate and fear the USA for good reason. And
it was the US government that funded the Taliban to start with (with a
little help from their friends in Pakistan).
 
> We're definitely not seeing the same "big picture" if you think he is
> a good example of someone cypherpunks should support.

You aren't seeing the picture at all if you think anyone much here was
suggesting that you should support him.  All that is being proposed is
that people in that position really want the kind of technology we've
been talking about, some of them are able to pay for it, so the chances
are they are going to get it, and someone might make money out of it,
and that will fund further developments. You don't have to think that is
a *good* thing, you might think it is a very bad thing indeed, but you
do have to deal with it.

Ken