Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com)
Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:34:39 -0500
At 1:00 PM -0500 on 1/25/99, Anonymous wrote:
> Apparently you took me too literally, bringing up suggestions
> of cloak and dagger paranoia. Things are more subtle. We all
> wear suits and chat politely here.
Well... Some of us, anyway...
> But suppose that this weren't just a hobby, or an academic career -that
> you were going to sell something for real, in the US, not just
> to (essentially government controlled) banks.
You already know my opinions on that. Financial cryptography, frankly, is
the only cryptography which matters. Politics flows from the point of an
ATM machine, and all that... :-).
> Now suppose there were an agency whose goal is to impede crypto
> as much as possible. With buddies in the IRS. Or with evidence
> (read: leverage) that you explained something substantial to a furriner.
>
> How would your venture-cap angels like to spend some years
> funding legal cases?
YadaYadaYada.
Um, I give up? How? Maybe by leaving their aluminum foil hats at home? :-).
VALIS was only a science fiction story, you know...
> Remember, you need a license from the government to conduct business.
And so you do. Corporations are creatures of the nation-state, and all
that, but kings and popes used to dole out national monopolies as political
favors, too. Nonetheless, capitalism is not optional, as the church and the
aristocracy both discovered that at their peril, and so, too, will the
modern nation-state. So, your point is?
> >Anyway, I'm getting real tired of the whole geeks-vs-spooks, geeks-vs-cops
> >political crypto-regulatory thing.
>
> So Phil Z didn't almost go to jail?
Yes. But he didn't. And, if he'd offered strong crypto-without-a-hole to
the open market, instead of giving it away as an act of polical rebellion,
he'd still have almost gone to jail. :-).
However, *I* think the reason he didn't go to jail, was because, frankly,
the whole question of whether or not to use cryptography became moot.
Cryptography is now an economic necessity.
If not, why do you think that PGP raised so much money the second the Feds
announced they weren't going after him anymore? More to the point, why do
you think the Feds sent him a *letter* stating that they weren't going to
prosecute him anymore, when they rarely, if ever, do things like that?
Because there was an emerging, and eventually enormous internet business
lobby telling the government to lay off. Political pressure was nice and
all, but, frankly, politics are a lot more optional than money is.
> So ISPs' machines aren't seized at the whims of prosecutors?
Yup. Happens all the time. The fun part about the internet is, all laws are
applicable everywhere. That's okay. It'll get fixed, modulo a little, um,
friction, like that. :-). After all, belief in a heliocentric solar system
was heretical once, too.
> Computers : Networked computers :: Steam engine : Railroad
>
> Some things become much more useful when connected.
> (Standarization helps too..)
Motherhood :: Apple pie :: Chevrolet? :-/
> RH, You are right that perhaps only the Amish can prevent widespread
> crypto, in the very long term. I wish I could share your optimism
> for the next decade or so. 1984 is a work in progress.
Nope. 1984 was *last* decade, and it was just a number, y'all.
<sigh> A potentially numerate mind is a such a terrible thing to waste.
> "Tomorrow, we can all sit back, and laugh.." -King Crimson
"Oh, no, there goes Tokyo." -Blue Oyster Cult
So, again, your point is?
Cheers,
Robert Hettinga
-----------------
Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@philodox.com>
Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:05