Recommendations for Cypherpunks Books

[dmolnar]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Jim Choate wrote:

> > (1) - books on future worlds and spaces: in particular, those that explore 
> > social, moral, political, technical, ethical issues (to be science fiction), 
> > or those that merely explore worlds (to be fantasy)
> 
> I see the utility in fiction to tell us what is most likely not to happen.

"If I name a future, then it won't happen" - ? 

This reminds me of the view that SF writers are trying to "predict the
future." I don't think picturing "the future" and then being "wrong" or
"right" about that is what fiction is usually about. More often about
commenting on the present. 

> 
> > (2) - books on cryptography theory and systems: from the basic theory 
> > (cryptography primitives), to the high level systems (public key 
> > infrastructure).

Just in passing, you may want to check out Stefan Brands' thesis -
depending on your background. If you're new to cryptography per se, then
_Applied Cryptography_ is a place to start. 


> > (3) - books on privacy, ethics and social questions: defining good and bad 
> > cryptography in the various contexts (low level technical, high level 
> > social), including politics (trade barriers).
> 
> 'defining good and bad'? Not possible, there are no absolute standards by
> which to judge.

The definition would assert some standard by which to judge. Not
necessarily grounded in any "absolute standard." You can reject that
standard, of course, but there are still people trying to formulate and
defend these standards.

One effort in this direction which comes to mind is the "communtarian"
approach applied to privacy by Amitai Etizoni. What I've heard of it I
don't like, but I don't know much more than a few basic things -
"community" above all, corporate invasions of privacy pure evil, state
intrusions less evil because subject to scrutiny. 

To this you could oppose the sort of libertarian standard more often seen
on cypherunks, with its familiar consequences. 


> I also think it is important that there be specific
> identification and discussion on issues which aren't ameniable to
> 'technical means'.

Yes. _Secrets and Lies_ is a start towards this in an information security
context.

I am reminded of the Salon article "Twilight of the crypto-geeks." 
http://www.salonmag.com/tech/feature/2000/04/13/libertarians/index1.html

I am also reminded of the phrase "technology is neutral" and how it seems
to polarize a debate. One side regards it as an argument that banning
technology is misguided. The other side as evidence of total naivete. I
don't suppose anyone has actually tried analysing where that phrase or
"technical vs. social means" pops up?

> things (the hallmark of any enlightened society I suspect). The US flies a
> plane over and drops everyone some sort of PDA widget. Now, assume in
> addition your child is sick and you believe she may die. How do you use
> the device to save her life?

Why, write a killer version of Solitaire and barter it for medicine!

Probably not. 

Does this thing have connections to the outside world? To other PDAs
within range? How much range? Who can you contact with this? Can you sell
the results of your computation to others? 

Now if you were the only one with a PDA, maybe you could figure out a way
to sell computation to other people just by doing arithmetic. Perform
parlor tricks and pass yourself off as a calculator. But everyone has a
PDA. So now you need to have skills...


> > - books on cryptoterrorism and cryptoliberation, where a major part of the 
> > plot revolves around the use of cryptography technologies in terrorism or 
> > liberation.
> 
> Not a lot, some about viruses and such. There's not a lot of glammer in
> it.

There's a bit more on computer security generally - _Terminal Compromise_
by Schwartau comes to mind. I think I owe him about $3.50...

> 
> > - books on cryptocommunities, where a major part of the plot revolves around 
> > people that are "cryptoheads" and for which cryptography and technology is a 
> > major part of their lifestyle (people who somewhat live, breathe and eat 
> > cryptography).
> 
> Ugh. The thought of a community that is so paranoid it exist through
> ubiquitous crypto is a bit self-contradictory I think. Who would you trust
> to make the technology?

Who said anything about the community being paranoid? You can use
cryptography to do new things beyond hiding data, you know. Probably the
most pressing would be authentication and controlling the data presented
to the world about you. Digital signatures and credentials.

If this PKI stuff works, then in 50 years it won't be the paranoids that
can exist only through ubiquitous crypto - it'll be *all* of us. Digital
driver's licenses and all. (Thanks to VeriSign for that awful phrase). 

Now you can go further and ask "what if a society had digital auction
protools?" or "what if selling your CPU cycles was normal and easy?" 
or "what if everyone knew about time-lock puzzles and time-release crypto
and could use it in everyday life?" or "what if the elections went
according to protocol X?" 

Even further, what if a society had the will and the capability to use all
of these crypto protocols just as soon as they were developed? (For
instance, posit that the provable security problem and the protocol
assembly problem are solved. You think of something you want to do, you
can put it together yourself and have it work.)

 > How would anyone have the time to make the horde
> of technologies this sort of society requires? 

PGP is here now, though of course no one uses it. PKI seems to be driven
by something, e-commerce maybe. Academics and corporate research are
looking for new and fun things to do with math. Sometimes they hire
students to implement those fun things. Sometimes other people read the
papers and implement the fun things themselves.

Where did anonymous remailers come from?

thanks, 
-David