[3168] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: An Essay on Freedom, Anonymity & Financial
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hal Finney)
Sun Aug 9 19:48:07 1998
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 16:34:05 -0700
From: Hal Finney <hal@rain.org>
To: cryptography@c2.net
This proposal is one of many which I have seen in the last year or two.
What they have in common is the suggestion that technology can bring
us to a point where law enforcement becomes virtually 100% reliable,
to an unprecedented degree, and that this will happen in the context of
a liberal Western democracy.
Science fiction writer David Brin discusses these issues in his new
non-fiction book, The Transparent Society (which goes into encryption
issues as well). Brin argues that surveillance technologies are advancing
to the point where widespread surveillance will become a fact of life,
and that the best solution is to go all the way and make it universal.
In particular, he wants to turn surveillance cameras on the most powerful
parts of society, the police forces, armed services, government officials,
corporate boardrooms, etc.
An online debate regarding these issues of openness, privacy and anonymity
is being held at http://crit.org/http://crit.org/openness/. This includes
two chapters from David Brin's book. The debate format allows anyone to
place annotations within the source documents to express disagreement,
add examples, etc.
Jim Halperin's science fiction novels The Truth Machine and The First
Immortal explore a similar idea, the invention of a "truth machine"
which can infallibly tell when someone is lying. This is another path
to universally enforceable laws. Halperin sees the technology providing
a Utopian future of universal wealth and power, with the truth machine
being the only thing that prevents the misuse of advanced technology
by terrorists.
Theoretically, a coup would be impossible in such a system because
the secrecy necessary in the early stages of organization would not be
available. The greater danger might be a dictatorship of the majority,
as these technologies amplify the power of the masses. Laws which are
routinely ignored today would suddenly become frighteningly enforceable.
There could be a reduction of diversity and flexibility as people are
forced to live under the strictures of conventional morality.
Nevertheless, I can understand the attractiveness of these proposals.
We want to live under the rule of law, not the rule of man. Making laws
100% enforceable, and requiring that those who pass the laws must live
by them, would seem to be a step in the right direction. The question
is, how much do we have to give up if we move to such a system?
Hal Finney
