Reflections on "High Concept, Low Tech," MartialLaw, the new Paper Gauntlet and the changing meaning of 911.

[Black Unicorn]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Art Hutchinson" <cartegic at mediaone.net>
To: <dcsb at ai.mit.edu> <cypherpunks at minder.net>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 6:24 AM
Subject: RE: Black Unicorn: Reflections on "High Concept, Low Tech,"
MartialLaw, the new Paper Gauntlet and the changing meaning of 911.


> "Black" wrote:
> > I never thought that- even as a foreigner- I would be so disturbed by a
> > display of patriotism- or even hyper-patriotism- as I have come
> > to be by the many American flags waving around as far as the eye can see.
> > The rapid transformation of the star-spangled to a war banner of anger,
> > vengeance and mourning all at once is unsettling in the extreme).
>
> Dear Mr.or Ms. Unicorn - I'm sorry you're feeling disturbed and unsettled.

I appreciate your concern.

> Perhaps if you were involved more directly in a community here - rather
> than sniping from afar - you would understand better that the motivations
> of many of those flag-wavers are rooted in a (long overdue) reaffirmation
> of  our bonds and common values, including your right to wax on about what
> you don't like about our society.

I'm not sure which community you refer to.  If you mean DCSB, I'm not a member
of that mailing list currently, but I also don't post to it.  (Mr. Hettinga
forwarded my post without my knowledge).  If you mean the United States, I
have resided in the US for at least 188 days a year for the last 10 or so
years.

> If you choose to see it more as myopic,
> pitiful, jingoistic, stupid or any number of other things you oh-so-subtly
> choose to insult us with, I can't do much about that.

The United States is quite myopic.  No two ways about it.  I'm not sure how an
argument can credibly be made otherwise in general and making one today merely
affirms your orbit within the new economy reality distortion field (with
apologies to Steve Jobs).  As for jingoistic, (for those readers who were
overly impressed with Mr. Hutchinson's use of vocabulary: "extreme chauvinism
or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy") I have no
idea how you could argue otherwise in the eve of the new air and land war
brewing in Asia at US behest.  As for stupid- I merely submit to you that the
average IQ in the United States hovers around 90.  (Look it up).  There is a
reason the phrase "No one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of
the American People" was coined.  I don't know if that meets the common
definition of "stupid," I for one quite enjoy most Americans I meet, but them
I'm fairly selective about the company I keep and I avoid West Virginia.  As
for your last clause however, it is true that regardless of how intelligent,
or non intelligent, the United States is you (or I) can't do much about it.

Despite all this I live in the US by choice.  Though I find myself
reconsidering this situation on a regular basis sometimes, lately I've given
it the most serious rethinking I can recall.  Bandwagonism is awfully
dangerous in an environment of hyper-nationalism, and unless the leaders of
the band can properly channel the hype they whip up... well, things get ugly.
See, Hitler was smart.  He whipped up and used the Brownshirts and then killed
most of them or sent them to fight foreign wars.  Hard to do such a thing in
the U.S.  They might just go beating up anyone with fabric on their head.  (I
heard that a pair of Mexican Americans were killed by a small mob in a West
Chicago suburb the other day.  Apparently there was chanting of "Go back to
Allah" by the peanut gallery).

> We appreciate your
> concern for our well-being as a nation, and for our cherished freedoms,
> but  we've managed pretty well for 225 years, even if that involves
> lurching back and forth, searching for the right path.

Going back through history you might find that 225 years is not an impressive
number.  As we Europeans are fond of saying "In Europe 100 miles is a long
way.  In the United States 100 years is a long time."  Yes, you are all
impassioned, invigorated, alive and very cowboyesque.  I find that most
charming.  All of us 'fur-in-ers' do.  Your great for us to find a place park
our generations old money in equity investments and see a return better than
e.g. the Swiss Franc.  That's your strength.  Unfettered optimism and
initiative.  That's why, despite many tries, venture capital markets never
work well in the United States.  Plus, you have filmmaking down to a cookie
cutter science.  We love watching your films, and those of us without that
much of an attitude don't even mind that they are all in English.  (Have you
ever enjoyed a firm in German?  I didn't think so.  The best one ever made,
"M," was silent).

> When you're
> leading the world in the instantiation of such freedoms, such lurching
> and searching are par for the course.  But I take it as a positive that
> you're seeking to steer *our* system, rather than going to work on say,
> the Chinese or the Russians.

I think anyone who calls the United States the world leader in the
instantiation of "such freedoms" in the face of the legislative and
administrative initiatives currently on the horizon- and those which have
passed in the last 50 years- is being a bit silly.  I suppose though that
being as close to the problems as you are, your mileage may vary.  In
actuality, the United States might well be the world leader in removal of
freedoms.  For while it may be true that the U.S. was at one time the freest
country in the world, the dip from that high water mark of democracy to today
might also mark the largest loss of freedoms ever.  (Perhaps you will want to
study this.  It would make an interesting thesis).  Most other 1st or 2nd
world cultures never made it very high on the freedom bar- having effectively
come directly from Feudalism to a sort of socialist (or outright communist)
form of governance.

> > The common theme in most of the proposals I see today revolves around
> > identification.
>
> And the part of the Constitution in which it says you have a right to
> not *identify* yourself is... where?

According to the Supreme Court, which the last time I checked was the highest
authority on such matters, in the 14th and 4th Amendments.  See e.g. William
Kolender, et al., Petitioner, v. Edward Lawson. (461 U.S. 352), Terry v. Ohio,
(392 U.S. 1), Lewis v. City of New Orleans , 415 U.S. 130.

> Not to be unreasonably searched
> or seized.  Yep.  Not to incriminate yourself. Yep.  Not to have to give
> up your firearms. Yep.  Not to be coerced into a state religion.  Yep.
> Not to be told what to say or think.  Yep.  Not to be subject to secret
> trials and hidden evidence.  Yep.  (And yes, I agree that all of those
> are dangers stemming from over-reaction to the tragedy).  But my copy
> of the Constitution doesn't seem to cover this anonymity thing.  Heck,
> it doesn't even say anything directly about privacy.

Really, you should look some of this up before you spout off.  Secret trials
and hidden evidence are the order of the day not just in FISA but also in
sealed warrants and affidavits, veiled testimony, etc. etc. of normal civil
and criminal trials.  You clearly don't live in California if you believe the
firearms nonsense and you clearly haven't been forced to testify about the
location or presence of incriminating papers in a white collar crime
investigation if you believe in the power of the prohibition against
self-incrimination.  As for being told what to say or think?  Don't walk
around with a bin laden tattoo on, or you're be arrested.  Don't think that
you hate blacks in the commission of a felony or your guilt of a hate
(thought) crime.  All of those things you seem to hold dear have been slowly
eroded over time, dear friend.  The only two exceptions in discussion are the
religious bit (which has been mostly fended off to my way of thinking) and
identification- which despite all your claims is not a legally mandated thing
for anyone to carry around.  That you do not know any of this seals my
argument from the very beginning.  Myopic?  Indeed.

> Sure, privacy is something we've come to cherish a bit more here than in
> say, Lichtenstein - and probably most of the rest of the world. (Test:
> How many Europeans know their immediate physical neighbors and their
> peculiarities? How many Americans can say the same thing?)

Have you ever been to Liechtenstein?  Given your implication above I have to
think not.  Have you banked there?  Clearly not.  Liechtenstein banks don't
insist on performing a credit check before giving you account.  (Your money is
sufficient).  Liechtenstein banks tellers don't fall for petty "social
engineering" ploys to discover the identity of depositors.  Liechtenstein
bankers don't ask you about how your life is, how your kids are, how your
business is going or how you voted in the last election.  (Questions I have
all heard asked of me from bankers in the U.S.).  See, these things are not
regarded as private in the United States.  Refusing to answer such questions
is cause for suspicion and scorn.  (And from a banker in the U.S. even a
"Suspicious Transaction Report").  These questions are simply never asked in
Liechtenstein because it is understood that it is none of anyone's business.
Further, the Constitution of Liechtenstein directly assures such privacy- more
than I can say for the Untied States.  The Constitution provides directly for
personal liberty and for the inviolability of the home, postal correspondence,
and telephone conversations.  All of these are only vaguely protected in the
United States, and the only penality is that the evidence so gathered cannot
be used in a court of law.  Jail terms enforce such laws in Liechtenstein.
Moreover, statutes like the law on persons and corporations provide for
specific codification of privacy of a kind that hasn't ever been dreampt of in
the United States.  (And thinking back a moment, wasn't it you just a
paragraph ago who commented that the United States didn't provide for
anonyminity?  Suddenly now it's the center of privacy jurisprudence for the
world?)

> But even
> if it's true that a body of common law and tradition exists to support
> privacy rights here, there are some sleights of hand in your argument
> that deserve more honest consideration:
>
> 1) privacy and anonymity aren't the same thing

In so far as a square and a rectangle aren't the same thing, I may agree.  But
squares are rectangles.  Privacy is a larger namespace than anonymity, but the
two are encompassed.  Failing to recognize their connection is literary
fiction made for the sake of your argument, I suspect.

> 2) meatspace and cyberspace are very different places

This is relevant how?

> > The disadvantage of all this is that all privacy seekers will
> > begin to look more and more like felons- or worse, terrorists.
>
> Be as anonymous as you want on e-mail

As long as you're not in the United States, where such anonminity is
constantly challenged, and breached.  I won't even bother to list the dozens
of examples of ISPs giving over such names to e.g., the Scientologists etc.

> But when you move in next
> door to me, and start loading trucks with fuel and amonimum nitrate,
> I'm gonna come by with  a nice big smile and ask some neighborly
> questions.  That's only good sense. It's only good society. (The debate
> about whether that's my responsibility as a neighbor, versus the respon-
> sibility of the state is, as Mr. Platt suggest, the more relevant dis-
> cussion IMHO.)  But your right to tell me to buzz off is very different,
> and more valid, than your right to conceal your identity *and* tell me
> to buzz off. That *combination* of privacy and anonymity will - and
> should - raise some curiosity on the part of neighbors and of the state
> we've elected to act on our behalf.

And there you show your American red, white and blue colors.  See, if you
moved next to me in Liechtenstein, no such questions would arise.  Such
questions are not asked.  And again, you appear to be short of memory, wasn't
it you just a few paragraphs ago making the exact reverse point...?  I'm sure
I remember that.  Oh, yes, here it is:

> Sure, privacy is something we've come to cherish a bit more here than in
> say, Lichtenstein - and probably most of the rest of the world. (Test:
> How many Europeans know their immediate physical neighbors and their
> peculiarities? How many Americans can say the same thing?)

Hmmmm.

I can't read the above other than to suspect that in your view nosey neighbors
make good society, or a good society is composed of nosey neighbors.  That
there is some kind of duty to pry for the "good of the community."  I think
that pretty clearly defines the differences between us.  You see, I don't
believe the Stasi fostered the kind of society I believe people should aspire
to create.  Clearly, your view is different.

Also, practice spelling with me:  Liechtenstein.

> > All of these things are vulnerable to origin fraud, however.
>
> As all security will always be vulnerable to social engineering
> and a desire to get business done (or vice versa).  Which is why
> good intelligence is more important than ever.  To the degree that
> metal detectors didn't (and won't) solve the problems we face, the
> ability to identify people, and have transparent transations (or at
> least transactions that are traceable ex post facto) is about the
> *only* approach with any merit (flame suit on). :)

I think your donning of the flame suit is the only real argument I need to
make against the bunk above, wherein you first claim that security measures
are vulnerable to social engineering, but then claim that more security
measures will be more effective.

> The notion that paper cash is anonymous is a relatively recent and,
> one might argue, aberrant phenomenon.

Complete fiction.

Paper cash is an age old tool for anonymous transactions.  Go back to the
French revolution and note the sudden drop in letters of credit, retentes and
other financial instruments by French royalty in favor of cash, gold,
gemstone, silver and other bearer transactions.  Go back farther to the
Chinese "flying money" systems or to chop systems to see that paper money was
used there to avoid confiscatory taxes and provide for anonymous transactions.
Again, your cross section of history seems to be all of about 25 years old.

As for aberrant?  I'll leave this as an exercise for the reader.  What
percentage of daily transactions in the world are on a cash basis?  And in the
United States?

> In the days of less intercon-
> tinental mobility, the corner shopkeeper knew that Mrs. Jones was
> buying laxatives, and yet privacy was preserved by virtue of unwritten
> community values.

Are you sure?  Did the corner shopkeeper tell his wife?  His lover?  How do we
know?  See, the difference in our respective approaches is that I don't depend
on others to safeguard my privacy, be they governmental others, officers
others at financial institutions or community member others (nosey neighbors).
I don't believe in systems which rely on the "honor" of the human race.  I've
been around to long to believe in the tooth fairy too.  To believe that urge
is a predominant one in today's human psyche is to ignore reality.  The level
of willful ignorance required to perpetuate that belief is astounding to me,
and then again, it isn't.

> As you point out, the availability of small powerful,
> destructive technologies, instant global communications and extreme
> mobility does change the game.  We should not pretend, in such an
> environment that any supposed absolutes about privacy or anonymity
> can or should remain the same as they've been for the last 35 years
> (and it's probably only been that long, if you think about it).

I don't know how to explain this view to others aside the shrugging suggestion
that perhaps you feel "American" is the only culture of note to see the light
of day in the last 4000 years.  (Hint: The Chinese were carving chop blocks
for anonymous transactions back in 1200 B.C. when I suspect your (and I know
my) ancestors were busy hitting each other over the head with big sticks and
living in mud huts.  See above.

> > What Remains to be Done.
> > What can we do to foster privacy and preserve crypto even in the
> > face of these potential (but uncertain) changes?
>
> This closing bit looked promising... until I sensed that where you're
> really headed is crypto for its own sake, and privacy as an absolute.

Yep.  Sorry this disappointed you.  I think it says more about your approach
than I ever could.

Just out of curiosity, which other "rights" or "wants" do you feel shouldn't
be absolute?  Freedom of speech?  Freedom of movement?  Freedom of thought?
Freedom from search or seizure?

> > C.  Anonymous communication.
> > I'm not sure this needs much explanation.
>
> Actually, it does.  Open uncensored and unfettered communication?
> Yes, surely (with a few well-established exceptions like crying fire
> in a crowded theatre).  Anonymous communication in meatspace?  Sure.
> Post as many political screeds on the sides of buildings as you want.
> And sure, maybe even this kind of exchange here.  But when the notion
> of anonymity is extended to finance *and* combined with unfettered
> global flow of same, this little "leverage" question comes into play,
> as we've seen so sadly in the last two weeks.  Will this mean lesser
> efficiency as we slide back into a book-entry future?  Yes.  Will that
> impede commerce?  Yes, somewhat.  Will it reduce privacy?  Maybe. But
> there are more and less virulent forms of that.  To say that privacy
> is an absolute under all circumstances is indefensible.

Depends what country you are in.  I understand it's indefensible in the United
States right now (though the ACLU might disagree).  The rest of the world is
somewhat less bull-headed about it all.

> Art Hutchinson (yes, that's my real name)
> Newton, MA (yes, I really live there)
> art at cartegic.com (yes, that's my real e-mail address)

Foolish boy.