Moral Crypto

[Nomen Nescio]

Tim May wrote:

> On Saturday, September 1, 2001, at 01:30 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > 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.
>
> What can I say? You clearly don't understand:
>
> -- how remailer _networks_ work (Hint: nested encryption...all the first 
> remailer sees when he opens a message is an encrypted message he can't 
> read and instructions on which remailer to send it to next, and so on. 
> Only if most/all remailers collaborate can the route be followed by 
> them.)

The fact that a given person is using the remailer network is not a
secret.  At least one remailer finds out every time he sends a message.
The point is, the entry from the non-anonymous to the anonymous world
is a vulnerability.

> -- how Freedom works (Hint: They say that even they cannot know who is 
> using it, except in terms of network usage. Which with cover traffic, 
> forwarding of other traffic, dummy messages, etc., means the fact that 
> Alice was using the network during a period of time does not mean they 
> know which exit messages are hers.)

You are not stating their claims accurately.  ZKS does indeed have
information about who is using it at any given time, if they operate any
of the servers.  Or at least the server operators can tell.  Each user
sets up a route through a chain of servers, and any given server knows
exactly who is using it as the initial connection into the network.
Again, the entry from non-anonymous into anonymous networks is visible.

> -- blinding. (Hint: That Alice deposits money into a digital bank, and 
> is identified by the bank, does not mean the bank knows who received 
> digital money from Alice, because Alice unblinds the note before 
> spending it--or redeeming it.)

No, but the fact that Alice transfered a certain amount of funds into
the anonymous bank is visible to at least some observers.  Once again,
the point is that as you enter the anonymous world your entry is visible.

Compare this with the original claim: "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."
These examples illustrate the falsehood of this claim.  Much more
is learned about the customers as they enter the anonymous system.

> > 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.
>
> How about McVeigh? How about The Real IRA? How about John Brown? How 
> about Patrick Henry/ How about Cuban exiles? (By the way, everyone 
> should know about the time an anti-Castro group blew up a Cuban 
> airliner. Terrorists, freedom fighters, or just a bunch who wants to be 
> in control?)

Not everyone will agree with every specific case.  But given our common
philosophical heritage, list members can come to agreement with regard
to most examples.  The test is simple, whether these individuals advance
the causes we support.

As long as you're listing examples, what do you think about Osama bin
Laden?  Would you support efforts to market crypto technology to Islamic
religious extremists?

The great thing about bin Laden as an example is that we can see
exactly what the consequences will be when he succeeds.  With McVeigh,
nobody knows for sure.  But chances are it would be much the same if
the militias achieved their goals: installation of a religious state.
Supporting these people means helping bring about another Afghanistan,
maybe right here at home next time.

> > 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.

An additional point: if you were truly unconcerned with moral issues,
you would have no objection to seeing discussion here about how we can
use computer technology to promote government power and control.

>  From your words, I doubt you support the same goals I support.

We'll see.  If you support increasing government power, then you are
correct.

25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No. 2]
092AA1EC9926D468F8964B8EF537DDC1782A1281
92F14832E4C534B35B8E9A1C10A5346E1E472C95
-12FF 12FF
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