From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Mon Oct 21 2002 - 16:04:25 MDT
Eugen wrote:
>
> Yes, but you can be held in jail, until you yield the key to the
> encrypted evidence, a mild form of rubberhose cryptoanalysis. Sure,
> you can trigger an automatical release with a watchdog/dead man's
> switch, but what if this will be associated with a penalty? Contempt
> of court is rather rubbery.
### I understand you oppose the idea of transparency, and the main arguments
you seem to be raising against it, is that transparency can be countered and
prevented by a massive application of deadly force, torture, control of
media, and other totalitarian techniques. This is indeed true but IMO it is
missing the point.
You realize that a regime capable of using such techniques will also use
universal surveillance to target repression and greatly enhance its
survivability. The application of rubber cryptoanalysis wouldn't even be
necessary - there would be no independent suppliers of computer hardware and
networking supporting encrypted data transmission and storage. Basically,
what you describe is not the fight for transparency - it is the death throes
of liberty crushed by a (high-tech) state monstrosity. By then it is too
late.
There is a window of opportunity for the emergence of the transparent
society, on the basis of a democratic, law-abiding but reasonably free
community, paradoxically, the type of system which seemingly has the least
urgent need to control the abuse of power. If, however, the society starts
evolving towards increased oppression (perhaps as a result of, inevitably,
good intentioned efforts at fighting the "evil"), this window may close for
a long time.
You are not likely to be able to oppose the emergence of the surveillance
state by covert means. I do think that the alternative to transparency,
cryptoanarchy, will be easily crushed a well-organized state controlling the
physical layer. Cryptography will not help you against rubber and steel.
I hope I am not setting up a strawman here. If you are not in favor of
crypto, disregard the above.
The current status quo will not exist for long. Universal (unidirectional)
surveillance is just a question of time. Once that is in place, any
combination of glitches could transform the surveillance democracy into a
surveillance autocracy. I do think that only transparency can prevent that.
So let me ask you the following question: Do you really think that the
alternative to transparency is inherently more stable, superior and more
desirable, or is your opposition to transparency merely an expression of
general pessimism?
If not transparency, then what is the alternative?
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:42 MST