The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Nomen Nescio]

On 31 Aug 2001, at 12:13, georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2001, at 19:50, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > This means that the operators
> > choose to whom they will market and sell their services.
>
> Here I disagree completely.  I think in a properly designed 
> anonymity system the users will be, well, anonymous, and
> it should be impossible to tell any more about them than that they
> pay their bills on time. Certainly most potential users would balk at
> requirements that they prove who they were and justify their desire
> to use such a system, since that would tend to defeat the purpose. 

Yes and no.  The users aren't all that anonymous, or they wouldn't need
anonymous technologies, would they?  The remailer network sees where
this message originates.  If you use Zero Knowledge software, their
network knows exactly who is using it at any time.  If a digital cash
bank came into existence, payments transferred into the digital system
from outside would largely be from identified sources.

Nevertheless it's true that the operators would probably not find it
cost effective to try to identify every single customer.  (Although ZKS
will cancel your nym if you spam with it.)

The real issue is the clause above about "market and sell".  This was
the original point raised by Tim May: what markets do we select?
His whiteboard exercise teaches that you need to identify, select and
target particular markets which make sense.  And if you care about the
world you are creating, that's where the moral issue comes in.

> I don't think it serves 
> any purpose to discuss who constitute "valiant freedom fighters
> resisting a tyrannical government" and who are "bloody terrorist
> fanatics attempting to overthrow a benign legitimate government
> and replace it wth a worse one" in this forum.  We may have strong 
> opinions on this matter as individuals, but it is completely 
> unreasonable to expect us to come to any kind of consensus as a 
> group.

Nonsense.  Most participants in this forum DO share common philosophical
goals: the preservation and enhancement of individual freedom via
technological means.  This is our common heritage.  People make moral
judgements every single day on this list based on exactly this framework.
And it is this moral view which tells us that bin Laden and his terrorist
groups are not the market which we should target in order to advance
these goals.

> Nor is it necessarily beneficial to do so. Would a system 
> useful to the "virtuous" seperatist Kurds in Iraq be different in any
> technical way from a system used by the "evil" seperatist Kurds
> in Turkey? 

No, probably not.  However the world seems strangely short of virtuous
freedom fighters right now.  In fact "freedom fighters" are probably not
an appropriate target market for cypherpunks.  They may be well funded
but most of them are wedded to violence.  If they get into power they're
not going to make things any better.  James Donald made this point: few
countries are undergoing true popular revolutions.

It would be better to target technologies that would benefit groups
where there is a large, oppressed minority, people who just want to be
left alone.  Unfortunately, almost by definition, oppressed minorities
tend to be poor.  So it is a hard problem to do this profitably.

> > It is important to identify markets which will advance the cause rather
> > than set it back.  Tim May made a good start on this in his earlier
> > posting.  Those who reject the idea of judging groups and markets by
> > their morality are the ones who are missing the point.
>
> Wrong.  When discussing design of a system, it makes sense to 
> limit discussion to parameters relevant to system design.  How
> much individuals might be willing to pay to protect their privacy,
> how great of injuries they might suffer if their privacy is 
> compromised, is relevant to system design.  Why they
> want privacy, whether you or I as individuals would think of them
> as "good guys" or "bad guys",  really isn't.

It's true that this does not directly impact the design.  But we can't
ignore the question, is this a market we want to pursue.  For example,
there are any number of papers on key escrow systems, or "fair" electronic
cash (where only the government can trace it).  Legitimate businesses
might well be willing to use such systems.  So there is profit to be made,
all the more profit since the government is less likely to hassle you.
Would you say that discussions of such technologies would and should be
encouraged on the cypherpunks list?  That it doesn't matter whether this
helps us in or long-term goal or not?

Surely not.  Morality plays a part in everything we do.  We have goals
in common.  We should structure our efforts so that they are in accordance
with our highest goals.  Having principles is nothing to be ashamed of.
We all have them, and we should be proud of that.