Cyphernomicon Top
Cyphernomicon 4.12

Goals and Ideology -- Privacy, Freedom, New Approaches:
Loose Ends


   4.12.1. "Why take a "no compromise" stance?"
           - Compromise often ends up in the death of a thousand cuts.
              Better to just take a rejectionist stance.
           - The National Rifle Association (NRA) learned this lesson
              the hard way. EFF may eventually learn it; right now they
              appear to be in the "coopted by the power center" mode,
              luxuriating in their inside-the-Beltway access to the Veep,
              their flights on Air Force One, and their general
              schmoozing with the movers and shakers...getting along by
              going along.
           - Let's not compromise on basic issues. Treat censorship as a
              problem to be routed around (as John Gilmore suggests), not
              as something that needs to be compromised on. (This is
              directed at rumblings about how the Net needs to "police
              itself," by the "reasonable" censorship of offensive posts,
              by the "moderation" of newsgroups, etc. What should concern
              us is the accomodation of this view by well-meaning civil
              liberties groups, which are apparently willing to play a
              role in this "self-policing" system. No thanks.)
           - (And since people often misunderstand this point, I'm not
              saying private companies can't set whatever policies they
              wish, that moderated newsgroups can't be formed, etc.
              Private arrangements are just that. The issue is when
              censorship is forced on those who have no other
              obligations. Government usually does this, often aided and
              abetted by corporations and lobbying groups. This is what
              we need to fight. Fight by routing around, via technology.)
   4.12.2. The inherent evils of democracy
           - To be blunt about it, I've come to despise the modern
              version of democracy we have. Every issue is framed in
              terms of popular sentiment, in terms of how the public
              would vote. Mob rule at its worst.
           - Should people be allowed to wear blue jeans? Put it to a
              vote. Can employers have a policy on blue jeans? Pass a
              law. Should health care be provided to all? Put it to a
              vote. And so on, whittling away basic freedoms and rights.
              A travesty. The tyranny of the majority.
           - De Toqueville warned of this when he said that the American
              experiment in democracy would last only until citizens
              discovered they could pick the pockets of their neighbors
              at the ballot box.
           - But maybe we can stop this nonsense. I support strong
              crypto (and its eventual form, crypto anarchy) because it
              undermines this form of democracy. It takes some (and
              perhaps many) transactions out of the realm of popularity
              contests, beyond the reach of will of the herd. (No, I am
              not arguing there will be a complete phase change. As the
              saying goes, "You can't eat cyberspace." But a lot of
              consulting, technical work, programming, etc., can in fact
              be done with crypto anarchic methods, with the money gained
              transferred in a variety of ways into the "real world."
              More on this elsewhere.)
           + Crypto anarchy effectively allows people to pick and choose
              which laws they support, at least in cyberspatial contexts.
              It empowers people to break the local bonds of their
              majoritarian normative systems and decide for themselves
              which laws are moral and which are bullshit.
             - I happen to have faith that most people will settle on a
                relatively small number of laws that they'll (mostly)
                support, a kind of Schelling point in legal space.
   4.12.3. "Is the Cypherpunks agenda _too extreme_?"
           - Bear in mind that most of the "Cypherpunks agenda," to the
              extent we can identify it, is likely to provoke ordinary
              citizens into _outrage_. Talk of anonymous mail, digital
              money, money laundering, information markets, data havens,
              undermining authority, transnationalism, and all the rest
              (insert your favorite idea) is not exactly mainstream.
   4.12.4. "Crypto Anarchy sounds too wild for me."
           - I accept that many people will find the implications of
              crypto anarchy (which follows in turn from the existence of
              strong cryptography, via the Crypto Anarchy Principle) to
              be more than they can accept.
           - This is OK (not that you need my OK!). The house of
              Cypherpunks has many rooms.


Next Page: 5. Cryptology
Previous Page: 4.11 Crypto Anarchy

By Tim May, see README

HTML by Jonathan Rochkind