3 ms·

A good read but I'm struck by how politically naive so many of the crypto crowd seems to be. The idea of escaping the government by going into cyberspace is non

by neaden 10y ago

A good read but I'm struck by how politically naive so many of the crypto crowd seems to be. The idea of escaping the government by going into cyberspace is nonsenical on it's head. You are a body. You buy things for your body. You go do body things all the time. Besides buying software, ebooks, and movies everything else you buy with something like bitcoin is physical and cannot be encrypted. Even with Lackey living on Sealand on San Fransico time had to be buying canned food, diesel, etc. If any government had been interested in what he was doing it would have been trivially easy to keep tabs on him. ETA: This quote from May especially struck me “Would Hitler and Himmler have used ‘key recovery’ to determine who the Jews were communicating with so they could all be rounded up and killed?” The Nazi's wouldn't have really cared what Jewish people were saying because they just wanted to kill them. Similarly if we think of something like the Soviet Union while cryptography would have undeniably been helpful for dissidents for coordination and getting ideas out ultimately you still need to have people on the streets or in office to get anything changed.

cortesoft 10y ago
I think you have an interesting point about still having to live in the real world, but I don't find your argument about Hitler and the Jews persuasive at all. Just because cryptography isn't useful for that particular case doesn't make it not useful for other cases; no one is arguing crypto will fix all government abuses. It doesn't mean it isn't a useful tool, though, in fighting corrupt governments.
- neaden 10y ago
  Agreed but May is the one who brought up the Hitler comparison. I think that encryption is minimally effective in cases of actual totalitarian states like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or North Korea. They have too much control, secret police, informers, etc. that encryption doesn't represent a viable way of effecting change in government. In those types of situations your neighbors can just report you for being a dissident and the Stasi can just carry you away in the middle of the night or bug your entire home. In countries like the USA, or even Apartheid South Africa it can have a much bigger role in organizing protests and other activities.
pjc50 10y ago
Here is a more recent example from history: the use of encrypted communications by the ANC in organising against the South African government. https://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv03445/04lv03996/05lv04001.htm https://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv0... You're right that you need to have people on the streets or in office to get anything changed. I think too many people forget this and forgo the slow hard work of street-by-street politics and downticket races.
- neaden 10y ago
  Agreed. I want to be clear that I do think that encryption has an important role in organization and social change. I'm just struck by claims from some of the self-identified cypher-punks that encryption could mean taxation would be impossible or the idea of escaping into this "Other Plane" as a way to secure freedom.
  - e12e 10y ago
    Agreed. I'm not even sure if it's all that interesting that encryption plays a role: I think privacy, and by extension secrecy plays a role. And in our world, cryptography is increasingly a precursor to both privacy and secrecy. But I think the fight about making cryptography available, really is the fight for right to privacy, and even right to secrecy in certain areas of our society. The USA is fortunate in some ways because of the constitution, and its repercussions throughout modern history - even if law enforcement can build or buy a device to see through walls, that doesn't allow such tools to be used without regulation. But now is the time to regulate large scale meta-data, traffic analysis, in addition to guaranteeing a right to technology that allows data to be kept secret.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Why couldn't it make taxation impossible? Sure, you still need to buy things in person, which can be done with cash. But drug dealers seem to be able to do a pretty good job of evading taxes. Imagine if everything that you bought in person was done with cash, or a bitcoin payment. That money would be untaxable. If you buy a house, for sure, the government can track that, and you need to make sure the money used to buy that is "clean", but a surprising large percentage of a person expenses could be done in a safe way.
fu9ar 10y ago
I don't want everything I read and write online to be analyzed by agents of a government agency who have, along with some other agencies, spent the majority of the past fifty years engaged in unilateral neo-fascist imperialism. I was under the impression that such spying was forbidden by the laws of my land. Apparently, The American Dream is dead and we are all simply feasting on it's corpse.
rmc 10y ago
(Some) Jews were being hidden by non-Jews. The Nazis would be very interested in the secret communication between the people/groups hiding Jews.
johnmarius 10y ago
Using encrypted communications and bitcoin you can make sure that all your physical interactions are with people you can trust. Dark Net Markets are an example.

by neaden 10y ago

cortesoft 10y ago

I think you have an interesting point about still having to live in the real world, but I don't find your argument about Hitler and the Jews persuasive at all. Just because cryptography isn't useful for that particular case doesn't make it not useful for other cases; no one is arguing crypto will fix all government abuses. It doesn't mean it isn't a useful tool, though, in fighting corrupt governments.

neaden 10y ago
Agreed but May is the one who brought up the Hitler comparison. I think that encryption is minimally effective in cases of actual totalitarian states like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or North Korea. They have too much control, secret police, informers, etc. that encryption doesn't represent a viable way of effecting change in government. In those types of situations your neighbors can just report you for being a dissident and the Stasi can just carry you away in the middle of the night or bug your entire home. In countries like the USA, or even Apartheid South Africa it can have a much bigger role in organizing protests and other activities.

pjc50 10y ago

Here is a more recent example from history: the use of encrypted communications by the ANC in organising against the South African government. https://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv03445/04lv03996/05lv04001.htm https://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv0... You're right that you need to have people on the streets or in office to get anything changed. I think too many people forget this and forgo the slow hard work of street-by-street politics and downticket races.

neaden 10y ago
Agreed. I want to be clear that I do think that encryption has an important role in organization and social change. I'm just struck by claims from some of the self-identified cypher-punks that encryption could mean taxation would be impossible or the idea of escaping into this "Other Plane" as a way to secure freedom.
- e12e 10y ago
  Agreed. I'm not even sure if it's all that interesting that encryption plays a role: I think privacy, and by extension secrecy plays a role. And in our world, cryptography is increasingly a precursor to both privacy and secrecy. But I think the fight about making cryptography available, really is the fight for right to privacy, and even right to secrecy in certain areas of our society. The USA is fortunate in some ways because of the constitution, and its repercussions throughout modern history - even if law enforcement can build or buy a device to see through walls, that doesn't allow such tools to be used without regulation. But now is the time to regulate large scale meta-data, traffic analysis, in addition to guaranteeing a right to technology that allows data to be kept secret.
- stale2002 10y ago
  Why couldn't it make taxation impossible? Sure, you still need to buy things in person, which can be done with cash. But drug dealers seem to be able to do a pretty good job of evading taxes. Imagine if everything that you bought in person was done with cash, or a bitcoin payment. That money would be untaxable. If you buy a house, for sure, the government can track that, and you need to make sure the money used to buy that is "clean", but a surprising large percentage of a person expenses could be done in a safe way.

fu9ar 10y ago

I don't want everything I read and write online to be analyzed by agents of a government agency who have, along with some other agencies, spent the majority of the past fifty years engaged in unilateral neo-fascist imperialism. I was under the impression that such spying was forbidden by the laws of my land. Apparently, The American Dream is dead and we are all simply feasting on it's corpse.

rmc 10y ago

(Some) Jews were being hidden by non-Jews. The Nazis would be very interested in the secret communication between the people/groups hiding Jews.

johnmarius 10y ago

Using encrypted communications and bitcoin you can make sure that all your physical interactions are with people you can trust. Dark Net Markets are an example.