--- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:24:01 -0600 Subject: Re: [Politech] Larry Lessig replies to Politech over limiting anonymity [fs][priv] Cc: lessig@private To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> From: Jim Davidson <davidson@private> In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20031205085420.022009c8@private> Dear Declan, Prof. Lessig reminds me a good bit of ol' William F. Buckley. You may remember back in the 1970s, Mr. Buckley was a champion of the Family Privacy Act which, among other things, limited the use of Social Security numbers by colleges and other institutions for, e.g., posting grades. Today Mr. Buckley is a big enthusiast of a nationalist identity card which he insists is inevitable. The pursuit of various tools for enumerating the people is going to end in calamity. It is going to end with people who have promoted concepts like nationalist identity cards being put up against walls and executed. When the scarcity of ammo becomes a problem, these people are going to be eviscerated and hung from lampposts with their intestines in place of rope nooses. Not by me, of course, but by the revolutionaries who finally tire of this new police state. Prof. Lessig's proposal of identity escrow is just another one of those "trust me" proposals that fly in the face of everything we know about the jerks in government. The government has proven, time and time again, that it cannot be trusted. Prosecutors lie on warrants routinely and are neither admonished nor punished by the present system. The government routinely arrogates to itself the power to issue subpoenas and gather data without judicial oversight, and the notion of an independent judiciary is utterly discredited. Identity escrow, like encryption key escrow before it, is a bad idea which ought not to be encouraged. It is exactly the kind of government-nose-in-the-tent nonsense which led to the demise of the Clipper chip a few years back. We already know that the government cannot be trusted, we already know that open source encryption systems can be validated, and we already have as much anonymity as we want on the Internet. Not only do anonymous remailers, anonymizers for browsing, and Freenet represent strong absolute anonymity systems (without those difficulties of "trust me" that Tim May has pointed out in various financial crypto systems) but there are also strong absolute anonymity systems for routine e-mail such as Yahoo and Hotmail, strong absolute anonymity systems for value transfer such as GoldBarter.com and Pecunix.com, and strong encryption with OpenPGP among others. Not only is anonymity important for whistle-blowing and reporting governmental brutality, it is also important for creating free systems of exchange, for avoiding confiscatory taxes and other systems of theft, and for discussions of sensitive issues such as incest and rape which, especially in the case of rape of men goes substantially under-reported without anonymity. There is a large and growing market for anonymity, and this market is being served. New peer-to-peer systems are now available which make the entire notion of controlling the Internet increasingly laughable. A system which protects absolute anonymity is good, it is freedom-oriented, it is proper, and it is what the market wants. The property of an identity is individual and it is not collective. All this "papers please" nonsense makes people sick, and rightly so. There was a time when the film "Casablanca" was shown in the USA when every instance of "papers please" would result in boos and hisses from the audience. That mentality was the correct attitude, and all this currying favor with the government by insisting on identity escrow is so much nonsense. A warrant requirement is no protection at all. It has never been an adequate protection of privacy. What's important to recognize is that where identity information is stored, the warrant or subpoena to access data already exists as a tool. Where identity information is not stored, warrants and subpoenas are useless - which is highly desirable. As for permitting systems for identity escrow, or using tax dollars to encourage them, this notion is silly. The government doesn't need to permit anything. Identity escrow systems will be developed if there is a market for them, if the government simply stands out of the way. Everything gets done if it is profitable to do it. We don't need the government to permit anything, and we don't need tax dollars to encourage bad ideas. If the idea of identity escrow has merit, it will be developed into a serviceable platform. After all, censored versions of the Internet such as "AOL: The Internet Sanitized" as I recall from their recent advert campaign, are widely accepted by some segments of the market. Prof. Lessig's view that "we will make no progress following path one" is nonsensical. Plenty of progress has already been made in this pursuit. Moreover, his pronoun is collective and mistaken. Some will make progress with identity escrow systems, others will make progress with absolute anonymity systems, and still others will take the Mark of the Beast and suffer eternally in the lake of fire for the same offense which caused God to punish Israel when King David violated His law and enumerated the people. Given that Prof. Lessig admits that "no real showing" is the status quo, then "we" have to trust that the government will be reformed to require "some real showing" or even "very real showing" before warrants for identity escrow systems can be issued. I think this notion that we can fix government and therefore should give up on absolute anonymity is rather fanciful. Perhaps Prof. Lessig has magic fairy dust he can sprinkle on Washington DC from a great height to turn all the trolls, demons, pork barrel rollers, and Congresscritters into more pleasant creatures, restore the integrity of the constitution and oaths to uphold it, and return us to an era of limited government. Maybe we should all cast votes on Diebold voting machines to signify our confidence that Prof. Lessig's petition for reform will be answered if only we "elect" the right set of rascals. In the meantime, I shall not be wasting my time developing identity escrow systems nor launching revolutions against systems which others believe worthy of defending. Instead, I shall be continuing my work to develop, implement, and utilize free market money, bearer instruments with digital features, and absolute anonymity so that more people can break free of the various systems of control and enslavement and get on with their own business. Meanwhile, I recommend that Prof. Lessig go to a good coin store and ask to see a sample of a Continental - the original worthless American paper money. On that item he'll find the legend, "Mind your business." Ultimately, that is what the American Revolution was all about. Presently, that is what the digital revolution is about. What the market wants are systems that allow people to mind their own business, and keep others from minding it in their stead. Regards, Jim http://www.ezez.com/free/freejim.html _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Dec 05 2003 - 14:47:24 PST