Cypherpunks and terrorism

[Nomen Nescio]

Suffused with boredom, Lucky Green wrote,

> Nomen wrote:
> ---------------
> What are the roles of we who provide technology that aids terrorists
> as well as honorable people who seek the shield of privacy?  Do we bear
> a share of the responsibility for the deaths and other consequences of
> terrorist attacks such as we have seen today?
> ---------------
>
> No. The chicken are merely coming home to roost. No surprise there.

Sure, but whose chicken?  Maybe our own policies and beliefs have turned
against us, to our detriment.  There have been a number of reports that
bin Laden uses cryptography and even steganography tools.  This could
still have a significant crypto connection.

But if not this time, then next time.  Sooner or later a catastrophe
will happen due to our technology.

Most people's worries seem narrow.  "Will I get in trouble?  Will the
software be banned?"

What about, "Should I be a contributor to the murder of thousands?  Should
I be promoting technology which could lead to a backlash against freedom?"

Some terrorists have exactly this as their goal.  They are hoping
to trigger a counter-reaction, an over-reaction, by the authorities.
They want to see a crackdown on liberties, a police state.  This will
weaken the enemy and demoralize him.  It will increase hostility and
make the population less willing to support the government.

Perhaps some readers share this view.  Tim May, spiritual leader of the
cypherpunks, has expressed support for the actions of Timothy McVeigh
in murdering schoolchildren in Oklahoma City.  He has frequently called
for the killing of every resident of Washington, D.C.  Will he now speak
out in favor of the death of tens of thousands in New York City?

Perhaps, for him, this is the true cypherpunk goal: promote murder and
catastrophe in order to trigger a spasm of Western totalitarianism,
hoping that the state will then self-destruct.

If so, then laws like the DMCA and SSSCA should be welcomed with open
arms.  Likewise with prosecutions for pornography and, even better,
bans on software technologies.  These measures work hand in hand with
the responses to terrorism in strengthening the control of the state
over the individual.

Those few remaining cypherpunks who cling to the original goal of freedom,
privacy and liberty, should face the moral issues squarely.  A case
can be made that the technologies we favor are a positive force in the
world, even though they can be used for destructive means.  But there are
arguments on both sides, especially in a world where a few people can use
the shield of anonymity to coordinate actions that lead to massive deaths.

The point is, cypherpunks must face and accept the responsibility for
the harm their technologies can cause, as they should also feel pride
in the positive effects.  And they must be able to show, at least to
themselves, that the positives outweigh the negatives.

At least, unless they are taking Tim May's view of the world, where no
deaths are too many and the blood of innocents ushers in a welcome new
age of tyranny.