Mark Leighton Fisher writes:
> Tim's point, which many seem to have missed, is that by design a tool that
> enforces the privacy, anonymity, and pseudonymity of a women striving for
> equal rights in Afghanistan can also be used by the Taliban in their quest
> to track down and kill Afghans who converted to Christianity and are now
> preaching the Word.
That's absurd. The Taliban doesn't need crypto anonymity. They hold
the reins of power. If they want to go after Christians, they just issue
an edict. Their Islamic police stalk the streets of Kabul armed with guns
and whips. They assault who they will, go where they wish. What would
they need with anonymous remailers and pseudonym based credentials?
The larger mistake, which others have made as well, is that
these technologies are "tools" which, once created, may be used
by everyone. Granted, with a basic encryption program this may be
the case. (And indeed bin Laden is already using this technology,
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2001-02-05-binladen.htm.)
But the more sophisticated technologies are not self-contained tools.
They require a supported and maintained infrastructure to operate.
Anonymous posters are painfully aware of how inadequate the current
remailer system is. A truly reliable and effective anonymity technology
will be more like a service than a tool. This means that the operators
choose to whom they will market and sell their services.
This was one of the main points of the original message. You can't just
deploy a technology and hope that someone finds it useful. You need to
identify and target a market segment where the value exceeds the cost.
And Tim May himself raised the issue of further looking for profitable
markets which are morally acceptable. He sometimes seems reluctant
to admit it, but the point of crypto anarchy is to improve the world
by reducing the impact of government coercion. It's not supposed to
be a nihilistic attempt to tear down institutions just for the sake
of destruction.
Any cypherpunk who creates a privacy technology which targets bin Laden
and his cohorts as a market is deluding himself if he thinks he is making
the world a better place. You can say all the nasty things you like
about Western civilization, but crypto anarchy has the best chance of
survival under a democratic government that pays at least lip service to
values of individual freedom. You who believe that the U.S. government
is the epitome of evil should spend some time living in Afghanistan.
See how far you get with your crypto technologies in a country which has
banned the internet, vcrs, satellite dishes, television, movies and music.
The point is that cypherpunks have a goal. The technology is not the
end, but the means to the end. The end is a world with more freedom
and more privacy. Getting there is not easy, the path is not obvious.
And it is certainly not inevitable, as the past ten years of failure
should have made clear.
It is important to identify markets which will advance the cause rather
than set it back. Tim May made a good start on this in his earlier
posting. Those who reject the idea of judging groups and markets by
their morality are the ones who are missing the point.
