[3172] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: An Essay on Freedom, Anonymity & Financial
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hal Finney)
Mon Aug 10 00:21:26 1998
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 21:07:43 -0700
From: Hal Finney <hal@rain.org>
To: cryptography@c2.net
"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes:
> I'm afraid I will not be able to support such a society until every
> American has the ability to tune his television and watch exactly
> what's happening inside Fort Meade. I doubt the National Security
> State would ever be so utopian as to apply surveillance to
> *itself*. When the reams of classified documents vanish, the doors to
> CIA headquarters open, and all secrecy is removed from *government*,
> then we can perhaps talk about watching the populace. Up until that
> point, there is just too much opportunity for abuse under cover of
> "National Security".
The debate does not seem to have advanced to the point where these
kinds of practical issues are considered. To some extent I believe
the transparency supporters are getting a free ride on the issue of
practicality. Maybe the idea is so obviously impractical that no one who
cares about that aspect even enters the debate. What happens instead is
that the discussion is purely philosophical, comparing idealized visions
of the future.
I can understand the motivation; it makes sense to first decide where
we want to go and then try to figure out how (and if) we can get there.
The danger, as Perry points out, is that well-intentioned arguments
in favor of transparency will succeed in putting widespread monitoring
into place but fail in directing it at the seats of power. This will
only move us closer to a Big Brother surveillance state where those in
power retain their invisibility while everyone else is totally exposed.
Hal
