16.23.1. "Is it legal to advocate the overthrow of governments or the
breaking of laws?"
- Although many Cypherpunks are not radicals, many others of
us are, and we often advocate "collapse of governments" and
other such things as money laundering schemes, tax evasion,
new methods for espionage, information markets, data
havens, etc. This rasises obvious concerns about legality.
- First off, I have to speak mainly of U.S. issues...the laws
of Russia or Japan or whatever may be completely different.
Sorry for the U.S.-centric focus of this FAQ, but that's
the way it is. The Net started here, and still is
dominantly here, and the laws of the U.S. are being
propagated around the world as part of the New World Order
and the collapse of the other superpower.
- Is it legal to advocate the replacement of a government? In
the U.S., it's the basic political process (though cynics
might argue that both parties represent the same governing
philosophy). Advocating the *violent overthrow* of the U.S.
government is apparently illegal, though I lack a cite on
this.
+ Is it legal to advocate illegal acts in general? Certainly
much of free speech is precisely this: arguing for drug
use, for boycotts, etc.
+ The EFF gopher site has this on "Advocating Lawbreaking,
Brandenburg v. Ohio. ":
- "In the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme
Court struck down the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan
member under a criminal syndicalism law and established
a new standard: Speech may not be suppressed or
punished unless it is intended to produce 'imminent
lawless action' and it is 'likely to produce such
action.' Otherwise, the First Amendment protects even
speech that advocates violence. The Brandenburg test is
the law today. "
16.23.2. Espionage and Subversion of Governments Will be
Revolutionized by Strong Crypto
- (I think they see what we see, too, and this is a
motivation for the attempts to limit the use of strong
crypto. Besides some of the more conventional reasons.)
+ Digital dead drops will revolutionize espionage
+ spies and their controllers can communicate securely,
relatively quickly, without fear of being watched, their
drops compromised, etc.
- no more nooks of trees, no more chalk marks on
mailboxes to signal a drop to be made
+ this must be freaking out the intelligence community!
- more insights into why the opposition to crypto is so
strong
+ Cell-Based Systems and Conventional Protection Systems
+ Cells are a standard way to limit the damage of exposure
- the standard is the 3-person cell so common in the
early days of Soviet espionage in the U.S.
- but computer systems may allow new kinds of cells, with
more complicated protocols and more security
+ Keeping files for protection is another standard
protection method
+ and with strong crypto, these files can be kept
encrypted and in locations not apparent (e.g., posted
on bulletin boards or other such places, with only the
key needed at a later time to open them)
- a la the "binary files" idea, wherein encrypted files
are widely available for some time before the key is
distributed (thus making it very hard for governments
to halt the distribution of the raw files)
16.23.3. "Xth Column" (X = encrypted)
- The possible need to use strong cryptography as a tool to
fight the state.
+ helping to undermine the state by using whistleblowers and
anonymous information markets to leak information
- the 63,451 people given false identities in the WitSec
program...leak their names, watch them be zapped by
vengeful enemies, and watch the government squirm
- auction off the details of the 1967 Inspector General's
report on CIA assassinations
16.23.4. use of clandestine, cell-based systems may allow a small
group to use "termite" methods to undermine a society, to
destroy a state that has become too repressive (sounds like
the U.S. to me)
- encrypted systems, anonymous pools, etc., allow truly
secure cell-based systems (this is, by the way, one of the
concerns many countries have about "allowing" cryptography
to be used...and they're right abou the danger!)
- subversion of fascist or socialist governments, undermining
the so-called democratic governments
16.23.5. "Why won't government simply ban such encryption methods?"
+ This has always been the Number One Issue!
- raised by Stiegler, Drexler, Salin, and several others
(and in fact raised by some as an objection to my even
discussing these issues, namely, that action may then be
taken to head off the world I describe)
+ Types of Bans on Encryption and Secrecy
- Ban on Private Use of Encryption
- Ban on Store-and-Forward Nodes
- Ban on Tokens and ZKIPS Authentication
- Requirement for public disclosure of all transactions
+ Recent news (3-6-92, same day as Michaelangelo and
Lawnmower Man) that government is proposing a surcharge
on telcos and long distance services to pay for new
equipment needed to tap phones!
- S.266 and related bills
- this was argued in terms of stopping drug dealers and
other criminals
- but how does the government intend to deal with the
various forms fo end-user encryption or "confusion"
(the confusion that will come from compression,
packetizing, simple file encryption, etc.)
+ Types of Arguments Against Such Bans
- The "Constitutional Rights" Arguments
+ The "It's Too Late" Arguments
- PCs are already widely scattered, running dozens of
compression and encryption programs...it is far too
late to insist on "in the clear" broadcasts, whatever
those may be (is program code distinguishable from
encrypted messages? No.)
- encrypted faxes, modem scramblers (albeit with some
restrictions)
- wireless LANs, packets, radio, IR, compressed text and
images, etc....all will defeat any efforts short of
police state intervention (which may still happen)
+ The "Feud Within the NSA" Arguments
- COMSEC vs. PROD
+ Will affect the privacy rights of corporations
- and there is much evidence that corporations are in
fact being spied upon, by foreign governments, by the
NSA, etc.
+ They Will Try to Ban Such Encryption Techniques
+ Stings (perhaps using viruses and logic bombs)
- or "barium," to trace the code
+ Legal liability for companies that allow employees to use
such methods
- perhaps even in their own time, via the assumption that
employees who use illegal software methods in their own
time are perhaps couriers or agents for their
corporations (a tenuous point)
16.23.6. "How will the masses be converted?"
- Probably they won't. Things will just happen, just as the
masses were not converted on issues of world financial
markets, derivative instruments, and a lot of similar
things.
- Crypto anarchy is largely a personal approach of
withdrawal, of avoidance. Mass consensus is not needed
(unless the police state option is tried).
- Don't think in terms of selling crypto anarchy to Joe
Average. Just use it.
16.23.7. As things seem to be getting worse, vis-a-vis the creation of
a police state in the U.S.--it may be a good thing that
anonymous assassination markets will be possible. It may
help to level the playing field, as the Feds have had their
hit teams for many years (along with their safe houses,
forged credentials, accommodation addresses, cut-outs, and
other accouterments of the intelligence state).
- (I won't get into conspiracies here, but the following
terms may trigger some memories: Gehlen Org, Wackenhut,
McKee Team, Danny Casolaro, Cabazon Indians, Gander crash,
Iraq arms deals, Pan Am 103, Bridegrooms of Death, French
Connection, Fascist Third Position, Phoenix Program, Bebe
Rebozo, Marex, Otto Skorzeny, Nixon, P-2, Klaus Barbie,
etc.)
- Plenty of evidence of misbehavior on a massive scales by
the intelligence agencies, the police forces, and states in
general. Absolute power has corrupted absolutely.
- I'm certainly not advocating the killing of Congressrodents
and other bureaucrats, just noting that this cloud may have
a silver lining.
By Tim May, see README
HTML by Jonathan Rochkind