Moral Crypto isn't wuss-ninnie.

[Tim May]

On Tuesday, September 4, 2001, at 05:26 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:

> "A potential balance between national security and science may lie in an
> agreement to include in the peer review process (prior to the start of
> research and prior to the publication) the question of potential harm 
> to the
> nation.... I believe it is necessary before significant harm does occur
> which could well prompt the federal government to overreact." -- Inman, 
> '82.
>
> ---
> It is not wuss-ninnie to spark debate, or to examine characterizations 
> and
> motives. Many say, "technology is neutral." It's not. Technology is
> CONTEXTUAL. Somebody is going to use it for something, and that's 
> usually
> somebody and something in particular.
>
> Most of you would agree that surveillance researchers failed to 
> consider and
> address the moral and societal implications of surveillance 
> technologies.
> That, too many said, was somebody else's problem. Now, it's *our* 
> problem.
> Had they looked into motivations and societal factors, we would have had
> more lead time to deal with improper surveillance and secondary use 
> issues.
> We are in this position today because they were "wuss-ninnies."

Nonsense. None of the current "moral and societal implications of 
surveillance technologies" are either new or unexplored. From Bentham to 
Huxley to Orwell to Donner ("The Age of Surveillance," 1980) to Brin 
("The Transparent Society," c. 1996), the implications have been 
explored in gory detail.

The notion that these implications would be avoided or handled by 
submitting all research proposals to Inman's oversight board is naive in 
the extreme.

Inman's board, had the Constitution even allowed such "oversight" of 
private actor activities, would have killed RSA in the womb, would have 
blocked PGP, and would have put the kibosh on remailers....but would 
have endorsed surveillance cams in football stadiums.



>
> If the benefits outweigh the costs, then fine -- but show me that you
> thought about it, and considered what other people might have to say, 
> even
> if you might not agree with them (or me). I'm glad you have political 
> ideas
> and theories of how it's going to all work out....but it often doesn't 
> work
> out the way you think, or want it to.

I've been reading and thinking about these issues since I was a kid. All 
of the above authors I've read, plus a whole shelf full (Declan and 
Lucky can attest to this) of other such books. Laqueur. Kwitny, 
Richelson, Bamford, Wise, Kahn, and dozens of other works touching on 
surveillance, secrecy, terror states, espionage, and on and on.

But we don't have to justify to _you_ that we have read "academic works" 
or thought about the issues to then press for there being no Inman-style 
reviews of research, no Lincoln-style suspensions of habeas corpus, not 
statist-style restrictions on liberty in the name of fighting our 
"endless enemies."

> I realize Tim's position, and I respect his right to express his 
> political
> opinions and ideas, even though I don't agree with them, and think he 
> is a
> self-identifying flamboyant jackass. I understand that many of you have 
> the
> same opinions, and likewise....


Agent Farr, you need a new gig.


--Tim May