Slashdot Mirror
Crypto Advocates Favoring ... Regulation?
mpk writes: [snip!] I've eliminated the submitter's entire write-up. So far submissions have been gushing with praise or harshly critical of this article in Salon -- nothing in between. Rather than choosing one side or the other, I'll just point you to the article, say it's well worth reading, and see how the comments fall.
After reading Lawrence Lessig's book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, it was painfully clear to me that technology alone would make the Net into what we want it to be. In fact, relying on technology alone would doom efforts to keep the Net open and free.
Like it or not, the government and corporations are the ones that will be deciding the future of the Net unless enough people take an interest in keeping it a free zone. Technology can't do it alone because technology is subject to regulation. Crypto is the perfect example. The police may not be able to determine whether you're guilty of a crime or not if you encrypt your communications, but if the government decided that you should be assumed guilty if you try to hide your communications, or if you refuse to decrypt your communications, then you're screwed either way. This is not that farfetched. Check out Britain, leading the free world in bad Net regulation.
The point is that Neil, Tim, and the rest are correct. Without the social structures to support our privacy, there is no way to guarantee it. Btw, I highly recommend Lessig's book. It's not that big, go read it. He makes a lot of sense. I plan to read it again this summer, just so I'll have more time to really think about some of the things he's saying.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Take taxes from you?
Like the Microsoft Tax?
Start wars?
You mean like Hearst, and the Spanish-American War?
Engage in gross acts of waste?
You mean like logging the Amazon rainforests?
And these aren't the only examples, by any means. You sound awfully naive about corporate power.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Maybe I'm just an anarchist at heart, but something about this call for external regulation be it by the government or any other exclusive group, scares me. It smacks of the early days of radio and the formation of the FCC.
Radio and the Internet trace their origins back to their original "invention" and use as media for the military. Radio and the Internet both grew into playgrounds for the savvy individuals as hardware and know-how became more accessible. Radio and the Internet both began to attract a larger audience as hardware became cheaper and know-how became less integral to the end user experience. Radio and Internet became the focal point for social concerns over decency. In radio's case this took the form of the "7 words". The Internet had its Communications Decency Act.
Soon after widespread use of radio began, the FCC was formed to regulate who had the power to transmit. Soon, only the privileged few who could afford government license had the right to transmit to the general public. (True HAM radio and CB are the exception, but neither reach the majority of radio listeners.)
The Internet has yet to evolve to the point where government license is necessary to provide content over it, but it is the next step in its development. Allowing the government any stake in the Internet is too much as it gets their foot in the door. Once they can enforce social contracts on the Internet, who's to say what we will need them to enforce next?
The origins and paths of both the Internet and radio are strikingly similar. If we (the Internet community in general) aren't careful, the destination could be the same as well.
Be seeing you.
JG
For a second, just reading the blurb on Slashdot, I thought that some crypto-advocates were talking about letting the government regulate Internet and place restrictions on cryptography. Fortunately I was quite wrong :).
It looks like the author of this Salon article is disappointed because a number of major Cryptography/Cypherpunk figures ... Neal Stephenson, Phil Zimmerman, Whitfield Diffie ... have started to advocate some very traditionally leftist activities (such as organizing unions!) and are walking away, slowly, from Libertarian ideals.
Good for them.
In case anyone's not been paying attention, right now our rights as coders and geeks are under attack...by corporations. It's not the FBI that's collecting information about misfits in high school, it's Pinkertons. It's not the Congress that's censoring web sites, it's Cybersitter. It's not the NSA that's stepping on software development, it's corporations like the MPAA, Microsoft, ad infinitum.
In the past, protecting ourselves with encryption and security was enough, because the government could only go so far. But now, corporations have powers the government never had. We need to adapt to the change in circumstances in order to protect our rights. If this means abandoning the sacred cow of Libertarianism, so be it. Stephenson, Zimmerman and Diffie are right on with this one.
Finding God in a Dog
What always puzzles me about this is that when people complain about how evil big corporations are, they always give examples of corporations abusing people *using government.* So the problem isn't just that the corporations are abusing government powers (they are) but that the power is there to abuse in the first place. Take away the power of the government to run everyone's life, and corporations will no longer be able to use it to exploit us.
So to the extent that corporations are a threat to our liberty, the answer is *still* to reduce the government to its constitutional limits. Once we do that, the power of Big Business will go away with it.
Boy, I must have missed that memo. Let's see do corportations:
Take taxes from you?
Of course they do. Ever heard of product bundling? Price gouging? Monopolies? These are all legal ways of extracting as much cash as possible from their customers, giving them basically no alternative choice.
Start wars?
What do you think the Persian Gulf war was about? If you don't think oil companies were behind that you need to remove your head from your ass. Corporate interests also frequently influence our policy-makers to enact tarrifs on foreign goods and harsh trade sanctions, which if you happen to live in one of those other companies you'd understand is worse on their economy than war!
Engage in gross acts of waste?
I need only remind you of the Exxon oil spill in Alaska, and the many many cost-saving acts chemical plants are known to do which destroy the environment and/or directly harm their customers.
________________________________
Berners-Lee starts thinking about what has happened to the Web since he dreamed it up: e-commerce, big corporations, money. "Libertarians are used to fighting the government," he says, "and not corporations ..."
What Berners-Lee is forgetting, is that today, corporations ARE the government. Sure we may wave our hands around about "democracy" and elect "representatives", but who are we kidding? We all know that our politicians are for sale to the highest bidder, and the highest bidders are the huge, multinational corporations.
So things haven't changed. Libertarians are still fighting big government, today in the form of big corporations.
________________________________
I've read the comments so far and I haven't read one which echoes what I felt toward this article.
Maybe I just don't "get it" but it seems to me like the author had an agenda, and portrayed the whole conference in a framework that is ill-fitting and contrived. I think she reads a bit too far into the meaning of events with regard to privacy-rights activists shifting from "libertarian ideals" to "socialist" ideals.
It looks like what's going on is simply that the "enemy" has changed forms. I'm defining enemy as an entity that wants to limit the public practice of knowledge and/or burden the public with suspect invasions of privacy.
When this entity is the government (Echelon, Clipper Chip, DCMA) you're going to see the technological-aware speak out against the government. When this entity is corporations (specific patent abuses, abuse of monopolist power, draconian employee conduct policies, etc) you're going to see the tech-aware come down against corporations.
Of course, the two are linked. In the USA corporations derive their powers from the government, and this power with respect to intellectual property has steadily increased in recent years.
As the battleground changes, it's not surprising to me that tactics change. The goal remains the same, I think: personal freedom to share information, and personal privacy. People will disagree with the specifics of how far this should go of course, but it seems that for most of us the answer is closer to "quite far" than "not very far".
It's not surprising that this article has drawn criticism. It seems to me to be almost flamebait, confusing the issues with ready preconceptions.
-Outland Traveller
"It's a dirty song but someone's got to sing it" - Faith no More
Hopefully this is a trend by your fellow crew to stop posting inflammatory tripe just because the submitter happened to include it. Sure, there are going to be a ton of trolls on every article anyway, but it's even worse when you put the flamebait right there in the story itself. Thanks.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
--
"But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
In a who-is-the-most-evil-of-them-all contest between the government and the corporations I vote firmly for the government. Three brief reasons:
(1) Business attracts people interested in money. Government attracts people interested in power. I find the the second kind more repugnant and much more dangerous.
(2) A government can do much nastier things to you than a corporation can. The absolute worse thing that a corporation can do is sue you into bankrupcy. A government, OTOH, can put you in jail, confiscate your property and do other most unpleasant things.
(3) If I dislike a corporation, I can more or less ignore it: not use its services and products, turn away from it's advertising, etc. Now a government is much, much harder to ignore.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Libertarianism does not reject social structures; quite the contrary. Individuals are left free to participate in various social institutions to a greater and lesser degree, and experience the benefits and drawbacks of these choices. It permits lone-wolfism as one of a range of personal lifestyle choices, but does not insist upon it. Most people inclined to lone-wolfism are libertarians (because other political doctrines regard them as bad citizens, or worse), but this does not mean that most libertarians are inclined to lone-wolfism.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
"Assault weapon" is a term with no real technical meaning - basically, it's whatever gun a legislator doesn't like the look of.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
He sees the librarians as "good government." The librarians sure did deserve that award, but that's because as a class they were helpful in resisting bad, intrusive government! If this were a "big government is better award" then the award should go to the AFA! They were the ones who wanted to use the government to "protect the children," the librarians wanted to stop them! (Oh... and since my Mom is a library clerk, I don't particularly care for the patronizing attitude toward librarians as "All those invisible, dedicated civil servants." Ah! The little people, what would the elite do with out them, he seems to say.)
The article was patronizing because it says, "ah! at last the Libertarian geeks are growing up and becoming democrats." I don't blindly follow my Salon appointed leaders, thank you very much. While I think some of the things these people have been saying lately are unfortunate, I haven't read of a big endorsement for CDA, the V-chip, the Clipper chip, or all the bad, government imposed technology that make geeks tend toward libertarianism. Also, collective barganing, is not part of big government! I believe strongly in unions, and I know that unions do not become popular with government-types until after they get power on their own.
On the whole, I thought it was a lousy article. I do how ever agree that computer technology workers should start unionizing, now. Because right now we're scarce and we have the power of a scarce, skilled trade. Eventually, though, this may change, and we'll find ourselves working the same long hours... but for considerably decreased pay and benefits.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I'd like to make an offtopic note- This is _exactly_ how news should be displayed on Slashdot, without the coloring of editorialism by the submitter. Show the article, let the readers make up their own minds without a set biased viewpoint shoved in their faces prior to it.
"Libertarians are used to fighting the government," he [Tim Berners-Lee] says, "and not corporations ..."
That's because for a long time governments had the majority of power. Now that big corps can buy any law they want, they are the ones with the power. I don't see any big contradition in the change in focus. Personally, I'm not against govt or business, but I don't like that a small group of people (who are running the show) being able to threaten and bully others to get what they want.
The problem with the Salon article is that it opposes libertarianism with social structures, but the whole point of libertarianism is to allow social structures to evolve without excessive government interference.
I don't even think that the privacy laws that are being written are necessarily anti-libertarian (since I certainly have a property interest in my privacy).
The issue is do you want the government dictating those social structures -- and that means weak crypto and the SEC, FBI and NSA spying on the Internet -- or do we want to allow those social structures to evolve organically.
I'll take the latter any day of the week.
Ms. Ullman devotes a tremendous amount of space in her article to criticizing others' points of view (as well as surveying irrelevancies like people's clothing and haircuts) but never really articulates her own. She tears down the ideas of others without proposing any to take their place. I'm willing to listen; but Ms. Ullman should speak her mind directly. You reading this, ma'am? Tell me: how should the social problems and issues introduced with the mainstreaming of the Internet be solved?
Most of them seemed to like it, however. Even the "geeks" realize that they no longer control the Internet--self-regulation is great when _you_ are doing the regulating, but once you have to rely on a corporation to do it, self-regulation takes on a whole new aura.
Not to say that the "traditional" opinion wasn't espoused. It wasn't nearly as prevalent as I had expected, though.
~=Keelor
Well, here we are again, facing zealots. There is something a bit different about these zealots:
1. They are very smart 2. They suddenly changed their minds
As every programmer knows, there are always many ways to solve a problem, whether it be how to get your characters formatted correctly, or something much more complex, say AI. When you take a stance on something and unequivically argue its truth, you risk throwing out all the other answers. This can't be right, especially when working within the confines of an extremely complex system; you can't just use a catch-all and hold to it.
Some of the greatest minds on earth have labored on how to create an ideal system for people. A lot of them have failed, some of them pretty badly. There are several reasons for this:
A small group of people has the smallest number of irreconcileable differences. Their "response range" to life is somewhat limited, therefore it is easier to create a ruleset to keep everyone happy, because there are fewer alternatives to consider.
The larger the group of people gets, the more responses the group can have [if this isn't clear, here is an example: 5 people can wear 5 shirts, 10 people can wear 10 shirts, the more people, the more shirts can be worn simultaneously]. Therefore it is harder to create a ruleset that will make them all happy. This leads to compromise, where most people are mostly happy. Obviously, that is not ideal.
So, their solution is to extend the trusted system by using governmental policies? Let's use the model i just explained to translate the expansion of the "trusted system": In order to extend your trusted system, you must get everyone to agree with each other, otherwise, you get people murdering you, robbing your bank, etc. But they aren't talking about crime that has some historical/legal/moral/logical precident, they are talking about legislating trust. That, my friends, is facism. Hilter didn't trust the jews. YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE TRUST. Under any system, diversity of thought is a nessesary requirement; without it, you are hiding yourself from the world; pulling the wool over your own eyes.
damn.. i have to go to class.. i wasn't quite done =]
One is the Government. Distrusted by many, Inefficient, Erratic, and dependant upon the whims of the elected parties at that time. Full of old men who know nothing of Technology, subject to the whim of lobbists and the dollar. Nevertheless, They are dependant upon US to vote them into office. I know for a fact that at least the fat cats in Washington will respond if enough people vote them out of a job. (Al Gore, defender of Tobacco - whoops - check the polls - now he turns into Al Gore, Vilifier of Tobacco)
On the other hand, Corporate America is beholden to nothing but the profit. The Jon Katz article earlier today with WAVE America is just a reinforcement. Profit rules, and rights, intellectual property, even individuality is simply a tool used to make more money. And how much say do we have over them? If we can't make it unprofitable for them to monitor, spam, sue, patent, and chuck the Internet full of corporate crap, then it won't go away. That's not speculation, that's a fact verfied by years of historical tradition.
Perhaps the solution is partially based upon the Govt. It's easier to motive Politicans to do good, in my opinion, than corporate America.
----------
ah honey, we're all resplendent - Bill Mallonee
His response was that that time was 100 years ago. 100 years ago, two people could go out in the middle of a field, look around, and be totally certain that no one was listening to the conversation.
Now, one way or another, you have to trust someone. At some point you have to rely on the workings or assertions of other people. The people that designed and coded your encryption software, the people that designed and built you communication devices, the people that swept the room for bugs, the people that verify that your friend's digital signature is legit.
In fact, the main flaw in the piece, as I see it, is that the author somehow assumed that "libertarianism" is the same as "anarchism." Libertarians know that there is an appropriate role for government, but that its role should be minimized to prevent an unhealthy accumulation of power in one corruptible institution. For the same reason, libertarians often oppose organized religion. And for the same reason, libertarians are now increasingly wary of aggregating corporate power.
It is a brilliantly American notion - best expressed in Federalist No. 10 - that factions and institutions ought to conflict with one another, for by their conflict is our freedom best preserved. Asking government to act against business institutions shows, therefore, not a sudden change of heart, but a deeper understanding of libertarian philosophy.
Occasionally, the author just went overboard, as when she blathered on about how librarians are civil servants paid by the public - and therefore, "true" libertarians should despise librarians? What nonsense.
Look, the political alignments of the tech communities (for there is not just one tech "community" of course) are likely to shift frequently in the coming years. As long as we don't get duped by "quick fixes," or slip into bed with an established political party, we will be able to keep sight of our ideas and ideals, and we shall watch our political power increase as society generally comes to accept the striking importance of technological issues.
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.
Quoth the poster:
The first part of that sentence is so ridiculous it can't even be analyzed. The second is more interesting. I'll concede that the Net began as "an academic's playground" (though I don't see why that should be bad, per se). Was it the "corporations" that turned it into the "dynamic, exciting domain" of today? No. It was all those poor, lamented academics -- the profs and the students -- who learned about email and found it made their lives easier and fuller, who came up with and embraced the Web to make their lives easier and fuller, who demanded that corporations and governments get online to make their lives easier and fuller. Without the "academics" pushing hard, nobody would believe the Net could yield a dollar, and thus, no business would have invested.Let me be explicit: The Net had value long before it had corporations onboard. This is almost self-evident: Unless the corporations sniffed that money could be made, they would never have invested in the Net. But if the corporations aren't there until the money is there, where did the money come from? Those academics.
Quoth the poster:
Hmmm. The Web was thought up at CERN, where one of the prevailing problems was the easy interchange across large distances of the text and graphs of nuclear theory. Yet they left out the IMG tag? Um, no. IMG was in HTML from either the very beginning or soon after -- at least as early as 1993 -- and was embraced long before there were corporations dictating standards.Quoth the poster:
Funding the research and underwriting the fiber that made the Internet possible in the first place?Quoth the poster:
This is a vision too horrifying to contemplate: a hundred or more corporations pushing standards to ensure their control, putting the dollars ahead of the data. The corporations are equipped only to give more of the same. Innovation, true innovation, changes the rules and risks invalidating the business models. They want to give us what they tell us to want, not what we want. Anything else is too random to fit on a bottom line.Quoth the poster, in the most damning line:
Firstly, I don't know any geeks who fit the description, but actually, I'd be much happier with Jerry Garcia running things than Bill Gates, so if that was meant to insult it missed the mark. But most importantly, note whom the poster believes are the key people here. "Consumers".Not "citizens".
Not "people".
But "consumers". From the view of corporatists, people have value in direct relation to their ability to purchase. Corporations love the rich not for being rich but for being able to buy stuff. All value is economic value, to a corporation, and those other human attributes -- ethics, honor, love -- are zero-value.
This is what makes corporatism evil.... not that it strips us of our human dignity. That it denies that there is human dignity, that people matter, that citizens are more than cogs in an economic machine.
Quoth the poster (and I'm nearly done, promise):
It isn't clear to me how corporations focused on the bottom line in quarterly increments can have a "big picture" but that isn't even the point. Intentionally or not the poster has exposed the key issue: Corporations act like living beings and they play on a field that is insensitive to individuals. And their only criterion of "rightness" is the ability to keep "progressing and expanding".If that vision doesn't keep you up at night, you're not paying attention.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach