Clay Shirky: RIAA Succeeds Where Cypherpunks Fail 342
scubacuda writes "Clay Shirky has an interesting take on encryption: 'The RIAA is succeeding where the Cypherpunks failed, convincing users to trade a broad but penetrable privacy for unbreakable anonymity under their personal control. In contrast to the Cypherpunks "eat your peas" approach, touting encryption as a first-order service users should work to embrace, encryption is now becoming a background feature of collaborative workspaces. Because encryption is becoming something that must run in the background, there is now an incentive to make its adoption as easy and transparent to the user as possible. It's too early to say how widely casual encryption use will spread, but it isn't too early to see that the shift is both profound and irreversible.'"
Here's a link to the article... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.shirky.com/writings/riaa_encryption.ht
Re:Here's a link to the article... (Score:3, Funny)
it's irreversible .... (Score:3, Funny)
Seems obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
Real world practicality will always be a much better motivator than abstract idealism.
But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
A running joke with a colleague of mine is that if this "engineering thing" doesn't work out, we'll become professional nay-sayers. Predict doom, gloom, and failure, and when something we predict happens (statistically speaking, we have a 50/50 shot)we can say "I told ya so!"
Re:But... (Score:2)
Abstract idealism is too general to accurately predict anything.
Re:Seems obvious. (Score:5, Interesting)
So what will be their strategy? Will they first attempt to "join" these networks, posing as users looking for Britney's latest, and entrapping systems that serve up the bits? Will they put out bogus trojaned clients on the services? "Dude, download LockTella 1.9, it's l33t!!" only to find that it hoovers up passwords and music lists, and forwards them on to DUDE@RIAA.COM?
Will cypherpunks come to the rescue, providing signed versions of the clients? Will the users finally understand the need to verify the signatures before running them? It's a big stick -- "run an untrustworthy client, get a lawsuit."
And finally, will this come full circle, leading to a true "Web of Trust" as originally envisioned by Zimmerman et al with PGP? I can see the further parallels to Prohibition, with entry to speakeasies controlled by passwords like "John said to tell you I'm OK" whispered through a hole in the door.
This could be a very interesting time to live in.
Re:Seems obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems obvious. (Score:4, Informative)
It only takes one person to break the encryption and put a song up on the net, but if he's likely to get sued/arrested then he'll think twice, and only those "in the know" will know where to go to get the songs.
There is a meme for this (Score:5, Insightful)
putting the genie back in the bottle.
it's expression alone indicates the likelyhood of success.
Re:There is a meme for this (Score:3, Interesting)
Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't something along the lines of, "I wish you would go back into the bottle," work? (Not saying the RIAA's task is that simple; just critiquing the meme.)
obvious yes... but legal? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hopefully, however, the
Re:obvious yes... but legal? (Score:3, Informative)
I see that you're not a lawyer... nor a citizen concerned enough to learn about his national laws. There used to be widespreah myths about entrapment, but I thought the illegal-drug culture in the US had spread the truth (as a defensive measure).
Here
It is really SAD (Score:3, Insightful)
The Cypherpunks never went around suing people (that is, actually costing them money) who weren't using encryption to mask their illegal activities. The RIAA is.
Am I the only one here who thinks that it is really sad that we are changing for the better not because of how we grow personally, but rather because we half to - to avoid having our freedoms being taken away? It just seems so wrong - I really feel sorry for those who won't be able to keep up.
Actually it's perfectly natural I'm afraid.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Bad reference in the original posting (Score:2)
Apple, meet Orange (Score:3, Insightful)
RIAA-style privacy is basically a Housing Company telling you that they'll take care of everything, and that you don't need to worry because you're probably safe. Note, of course, that the RIAA companies are the types whose security has been foiled by such stunning feats of ingenuity as writing on a CD with a magic marker, or an algorithm written by a 16-year-old that can be implemented using as much space as fits on the side of a pencil.
What the RIAA gets people to adopt is the style of "no-brainer" security people are used to when they get their lockers broken into at the gym, as opposed to asking us to take some frickin' responsibility for ourselves as the Cypherpunks would urge.
You didn't read the article (Score:5, Informative)
changing laws (Score:5, Insightful)
to a first approximation, every PC owner under the age of 35 is now a felon.
This may or may not be an exaggeration, I have no idea, but Shirky makes a good point. When the vast majority of a society is violating a certain law, it is a sign that the law, not the society needs to change.
At this time, it seems that the RIAA is winning, and we are moving inexorably towards a world where large corporations control what people do with there computers. However, because there is so little popular respect at the moment for copyright law, it follows that eventually those laws will change.
Over the next 5-10 years, I predict that many laws will be completely rewritten to better accommodate the changes that the internet has brought upon society. Many of these changes will be for the better, and the end result will almost certainly be a more free and open society. Unfortunately, democracies are slow to act, so there will be years more of legal confusions and abuses of power before things finally straighten out.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:changing laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people routinely travel 5-10 miles above the speed limit on the highway -- regardless of what the posted limit is. Should we change the limit from 65 to 75 so most of us aren't breaking the law anymore? Should we consider the studies that show traffic fatalities increase when speed limits are raised?
It's human nature to choose the course of action that benefits one's self the most, but if that action has a net effect of reducing benefits to others (by not compensating them for their work, or by killing them in a car crash), it is right for the state to restrict your ability to follow that course of action.
Re:changing laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:changing laws (Score:2)
Personally I think that, aside from the whole erosion of respect for the law thing that is usually argued, the lower overhead from stopping
Re:changing laws (Score:5, Insightful)
This is certainly an excellent rule of thumb and our legislators should follow popular opinion to laws or at least in theory, they won't be re-elected. Just keep in mind that this is concept should never be taken as an absolute. The Founding Fathers were concerned with what the potential for what they called "tyranny of the majority," South Africa being the typical example.
Regarding legislation to change copyright laws to make them more reasonable, it's just not going to happen for two major reasons. First, I really don't think there will ever be enough critical mass of informed, upset people. Probably 90% of the population either doesn't care or just assumes that copyright is a natural phenomena rather than an artificial constraint created as a means to an end--creation of works and the betterment of society. And second, the entertainment industries have too much money and are unified on this issue. Compare this to the do-not-call legislation. That is an example of what it takes for a grass roots movement to defeat an industry lobbyist on a big issue. The entertainment industries have tons more money than the DMA and telemarketing phone calls were in people's faces, constantly annoying them into complaining to their legislator. For the vast majority of the people they don't ever see any impact of unbalanced copyright laws on their lives.
Re:changing laws (Score:3, Informative)
I like the way that John Parry Barlow [eff.org] expresses this idea:
How about "Fear of RIAA" (Score:5, Informative)
--
Interesting, but apathy will prevail (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Interesting, but apathy will prevail (Score:3, Informative)
WASTE! (Score:5, Informative)
Digging their own graves... (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
to a first approximation, every PC owner under the age of 35 is now a felon.
Now remember what the Cypherpunks said a few years ago?
If crypto is outlawed,
only outlaws will have encryption
There you have it: goodbye RIAA. We hardly knew ya. You made us all felons, and by doing so, you opened the floodgate that were going to drown you.
Re:Digging their own graves... (Score:3, Informative)
1. your IP address is still visible (lesser of all)
2. WHO are you trusting to view your files? who's to say it's not a RIAA-mandated agency ?
3. WHO are you trusting to download from?
4. even if you KNOW who you're talking to, if you don't manually verify, on a secure medium, the key used. how do you know there's no middle-man? the dsniff tool widely show this (sshmitm) by assuming users always click "yes" when promp
Re:Digging their own graves... (Score:2, Interesting)
Those are not problems of the encryption, nor even of the system which employs it. The problems you mention result from trusting an untrustable contact.
It's not an IP address you're trying to conceal, (having an IP is not illegal) it's the activity occuring at that IP address which you're concerned with. Similarly, if you get your content only from and offer your content only to trustable people, then you don't ha
Re:Digging their own graves... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not before they attempt to lobby Congress to pass laws banning encryption use by the masses.
I prefer visible encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
A bit rambling... (Score:5, Interesting)
However it's a rather tenuous link to say that the RIAA succeeded where Cypherpunks failed. Advocates are one thing, but really the rise of P2P applications and the growing Internet user base are what have caused P2P to become a real PITA for the RIAA. Therefore they make high profile legal cases to grab media attention. However, they could not realistically target piracy any more than the police raids on weekend markets in London will stop home-burned DVDs from being sold on a stall.
So, some people will use encryption just like Del Boy and Rodney (UK reference to Only Fools and Horses) used a suitcase for their wares and ran whenever the Police came close by. But massive public adoption of cryptography will only be because it will be built in for a reason (rather than optional) and because processors are fast enough to encrypt/decrypt on the fly with long keys... and still, it's a prediction. It's not mainstream yet - and the main thing this guy is forgetting is that the RIAA will bait and trap users with or without encryption on the wires.
Re:A bit rambling... (Score:2)
I understand your point that encryption won't be widespread until it's "built-in", and that's been the bane of widespread adoption of crypto. But the whole point of this article is that if the most popular filesharing services adopt encryption, users will i
Adversaries help in spite of themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA has blunders at least twice. First it shutdown Napster 'way late (because it wasn't easy), now it is harassing KaZaa users with even less success. The next incarnation will be even tougher. They ought to be putting their energies into a paradigm shift like iPod. Or maybe even running their business competantly, with decent A&R budgets and better terms for musicians and customers since their distribution monopoly has faded.
Musicians! "Take back the guitar case!" (Score:5, Informative)
Imagine a 'one-hit wonder' like Normal Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky," garnering 7 million or so direct tips for a quarter worth of gold (most tips would probably be more, if you actually liked the song enough to bother tipping the artist, and Norman's old "Spirit in the Sky" tune kinda rocks IMNSHO). I'm talking about more than a million dollars -- AFTER taxes. I have no idea what Norman's made from the song, but I doubt he did that well...
JMR
Speaking ONLY for Jim Ray.
snake oil (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. There's been several explosions of various file/disk encryption products. Your handheld device isn't a Somebody(Something?) until it's got at least a dozen "encrypted" personal information storage widgets for it.
The problem is that encryption is 90% snake oil. Usually it's written by someone who thinks they know encrpytion- and encryption isn't, to coin the phrase, like a hand grenade; close doesn't count. Zimmerman is famous for his saying that "anyone who claims to have unbreakable encryption doesn't"(apologies for paraphrasing).
Encryption also does little when physical security can't be controlled; Dallas Semi had the right idea with their iButtons, which brought reasonably secure key storage to the masses(if opened, for example, it erased itself) but it's gone pretty much nowhere; you just don't see them in widespread use(unlike, say, a proximity card or magswipe). I suspect even USB keys now vastly outnumber iButton devices.
All the encryption in the world won't do you any good if you can't store the keys securely...and these days, all it takes is a janitor with a CDROM with linux that 'phones home' and sends back choice tidbits...or an ipod.....or a USB hard drive..or a USB memory key...or a blank CDR, since so many machines come with CD burners now...
Re:snake oil (Score:5, Informative)
Where does that claim come from? I'm pretty sure it's not true because more than 10% of encryption is PGP (not counting government crypto, anyway), and PGP isn't snake oil.
It's pretty easy to find snake oil, just read the Doghouse section of Bruce Schneier's monthly Crypto-Gram [counterpane.com]. But there are also a lot of good companies out there providing a lot of crypto solutions (although admittedly most of them actually license the technology from a small handful of good companies, like RSA and Certicom).
Encryption also does little when physical security can't be controlled
But the issue at hand, with regard to the RIAA and anonymity, is about network security. The RIAA finds it much easier to subpoena your ISP than to sneak into your house and steal your USB keys.
Good and ubiquitous crypto certainly isn't the end-all-and-be-all of security, as you point out, but it would indeed make for 'profound and irreversible' changes in the Internet, in the vulnerability landscape, and in the threat models of pretty much everyone on it.
Re:snake oil (Score:2, Insightful)
Right... (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess it makes sense, but I'm not going to be putting the RIAA into my prayers at night because of it.
No no NO no!!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not people intercepting your mp3s - the problem is sharing an mp3 with a guy working for the RIAA or in my case the CRIA and they get your IP and then they go to your ISP in an attempt to get you booted off the net, exactly as happened to me.
For instance - on Sourceforge there is a sooperencypted IRC project for safe sharing.
Useless.
All the RIAA spies have to do is go on the net, get that software, join the queue for mp3s then rat you out exactly as specified above.
What we NEED is a way to share files in such a manner as the receiver has no idea what your IP is.
This is not going to be easy. (And please don't mention Freenet ok?)
Re:No no NO no!!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless it's email, in which case the sender ought to be fully and accurately identified.
Am I the only one who sees a problem with reaching simultaneously for More Anonymity AND More Accountability?
Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not going to be easy. (And please don't mention Freenet ok?)
Because it's got kiddie porn? Well, sorry, but you can't pick and choose anonymity. If there are logs the police can use to tell who shared that, the RIAA can subpoena the same logs to that show you shared mp3s. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Another thing is that Freenet is dead slow, in a CPU and memory-hungry Java-implementation, and in general not that great. But it's likely to improve...
The only other alternative I see that is pseudoanonymous is having a set of trusted friends, routing not only requests but also the data over it. That way, no part of the chain knows more than where it's coming from and where it's going Bob simply routed a connection between John and Bill. John doesn't know about Bill, Bill doesn't know about John. Bob doesn't know if the chain starts with John or ends with Bill or anything. Of course, this would also be a lot slower than direct P2P as is the norm today.
Kjella
Re:No no NO no!!!!! (Score:2)
Now if only it was in english.
Tradeoffs (Score:2)
Cant have both, unless someone runs a central 'randomizer' service.. but then you have a single point of failure and insecurity.
Re:No no NO no!!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
It is also inevitable that at one point, someone untrusted will join the network. Then he can gatter information to build a case against sharers in the web of trusts. You probably have no way of knowing who is the stool and you'll have to scrap your web of trysts and rebuild it from scratch.
So
Unbreakable anonymity? (Score:5, Interesting)
I read the article and can find nothing there suggesting how I can trade anything for unbreakable anonymity, or even how unbreakable anonymity could even be implemented.
Encrypt the packets? Fine. You can still trace their origin.
Let's say that you do RSA key pairs, and build them into some sort of P2P. When two people connect, they swap public keys and encrypt the stream.
There is nothing that says that the person who is leeching a file from you isn't Hillary Rosen. Traceroute, and you're still nailed.
The only way to be truly anonymous in a P2P application would be to have the application auto proxy a neighbor. Here's how that would work.
User WantMusic jumps on the new P2P net and broadcasts a desire to download "myfavoritesong.mp3", and their RSA public key along with the request. Some other user, MusicBank, has the song. Rather than having the client pull the data directly from MusicBank, have MusicBank push the data to the client. Each outbound packet from MusicBank would at random select someone else on the net and say "Take this packet of data and pass it along to user WantMusic at this IP address."
If the someone else happened to be Hillary Rosen, all she would get is a packet of unreadable data - she doesn't have the private key. She could know who it was from, and where it was going but have no idea what it was. Might be music, might be the Linux kernel.
If Hillary jumps on the net and tries to download myfavoritesong.mp3, all she could do is traceroute a bunch of packets to 2nd party proxies. By the definition of the protocol, they don't have the file. They're innocent. She still doesn't know MusicBank has the file.
The disadvantage to this protocol is that it'd be slow. Each packet would have to hit a proxy. Instead of server->client, it'd be server->proxy->client. You could expect downloads to be at least 1/3 slower.
If I had the time, I'd write this sucker.
Weaselmancer
Re:Unbreakable anonymity? (Score:2)
Re:Unbreakable anonymity? (Score:2)
Not a bad idea, but a statistical attack would bust that protocol.
Traceroute all the packets, and if you find that 25% come from one source, then they have the file. And you're busted.
Weaselmancer
Re:Unbreakable anonymity? (Score:3, Informative)
As long as an arbitrary (untrusted) node can see who the source and destination is, it won't work.
Re:Unbreakable anonymity? (Score:4, Informative)
Sign the packets. Broadcast them, and anyone who receives them broadcasts them to anyone else who's interested. You don't need to hide the fact you're sending packets if there's no way of knowing whether you originated them or not. You're just a part of the network, routing traffic for anyone who's interested. You're no more liable for filtering it than the Tier-1 routers are.
You sent that packet? No I didn't I forwarded it. From whom? Don't know, it's automatic.
Konspire2B
Isn't that (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Unbreakable anonymity? (Score:4, Interesting)
First off, thanks - seriously. I need people to challenge this so that I can spot problems. Too bad you posted as AC. So here goes.
1) Client says "who has this file?" Server says "me" and sends client public key. Client knows IP of sender. Client is RIAA. Server nailed.
In this protocol, only the client would broadcast a public key. Client broadcasts a file request and a public key, and somebody responds. Nobody knows who. The server never directly contacts the client under any circumstances.
2) Client says "who has this file?" Server says to a random computer "Tell client I have this file." and passes along its public key. Random computer is RIAA. Server nailed.
Again, server never broadcasts a public key. And even if the message was "Tell client I have this file," at this point server would have the client's public key and could encrypt the intent to broadcast the file.
Keep it up - keep poking at this. Maybe we can establish a truly anonymous protocol here!
Weaselmancer
Re:Unbreakable anonymity? (Score:2, Interesting)
Freenet has non-trivial to break privacy for it's users. I won't say unbreakable since that's not really proveable.
Of course it has problems:
1) very slow
2) very unreliable
3) not easily searchble.
Because of these issues it's not going to replace Napster/Kazaa/etc for normal users.
That's always the tradeoff for security anyway. Easy to use or secure? Pick one.
Re:Unbreakable anonymity? (Score:2)
That's a really good point. Hadn't thought of that.
All this would do is make them go after people asking for files rather than people sharing the files.
Well, so far it's the people sharing the files that the *AA have been after. The true-and-correct name for piracy is "copyright violation", so it's the sharers who stand to get in trouble. IANAL, so I'd like to know if I'm mistaken.
Maybe this part of the protocol doesn't need to be fixed. It might be ok (or at least safe, anyways) to ask for a fi
Re:Unbreakable anonymity? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, but as part of the network, you would be receiving and forwarding other peoples' responses too (unless you're abusing the network, in which case you deserve to be tracked down
Something like this could be easily turned into a freenet with less secrecy and more privacy by establishing a mesh of nodes, each wit
long term (Score:2)
Sealed lips (Score:5, Interesting)
Yahoo and Hot Mail should turn on by default (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the fastest way to get encryption turned on by default is to have these major email providers (like Yahoo and Hotmail) to turn on encryption by default. If they did so, then there will be enough momentum for the other providers to do so too, and anyone using encryption would not stand out as a potential trouble-maker ....
The reason why it is importatnt to have a critical mass of communications in encryption is becuase otherwise the people encrypting sorely stand out. If I decide (which I would love to) start encrypting today, many people would wonder what sort of shady business I have gotten into. Not to mention Ashcroft would be after me, with a claim that I am some Lone-Wolf terrorist ...
My point is that there should be there has to be enough people encrypting for it to become feasible. If I am one of the people encrypting while others are not then I am the proverbial needle in a haystack. Any magnet can easily pull me out by my jugular ... If I am one of the many other people encrypting then I am just another hay in the hystack ... much harder then to grab me by my b**** ....
Re:Yahoo and Hot Mail should turn on by default (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't start encrypting today, you don't contribute to reach the critical mass. If everybody thinks like that, widespread use of encryption is gonna take a long time to come.
If Hotmail or Yahoo starts making encryption easy to use, many people would wonder what sort of business they are encouraging/supporting.
Oh, and Microsof
Encryption is good, but not the complete answer. (Score:2, Insightful)
To defeat the RIAA all that is needed is a challenge that requires a HUMAN response. Right now they use robots- but they can't compete if they have to examine an image and type what it is (takes a real person).
A better approach than that, but harder and less efficient is something like Freenet-
but it really needs to use ed2k type links and incorporate a searc
He's Right! (Score:4, Insightful)
Saying that using encryption is good doesn't change the fact that regular people see no use for encrypting everything.
People will send their CC numbers through regular email! How can we get people to use encryption? Transparency, transparency, transparency.
If I send, "agoij(*UOLHa^&&%alhkAHI3%&%&jdha8tFHD98ht4Fls 8" to Mom she'll delete it. If I send it, and she reads, "Buy me an iPod for Christmas", she'll still delete it, but at least she got the message with no labor on her side.
Until encryption is enabled by default, and is transparent to the user, clueless users will rule the way you communicate. Sadly, this puts much of the onus on Microsoft, which won't do anything until there is a huge! public backlash - then come out with a easily broken implementation of it. :(
Encryption use isn't about privacy, it's about necessity. When the great unwashed (wait, that's Linux users ;) - when the masses are FORCED to use it, that's when it will get used.
Apple could do what MS can't - have an 'Encrypt for OS X users' checkbox on their mail app. Then with some 'return receipt' automagically encrypt messages to other OS X users. (I'm not a programmer, can you tell?).
To sum up, users want to be safe, secure, and anonymous, but they don't want to do anything to make it happen. 'Eat what you get, and use what you have" is the pervasive attitude.
Hmm... maybe that's their evil plan (Score:2)
(Checks to-do list for today, hmm, semi-plausably accuse a *AA organization of being terrorists...
Speaking of encrypting files (Score:2)
My first thought was adding a password to a zip file, but that would require WinZip or similar file utility. Adding a password to the directory is easy enough but then your web host would have access to the originals. And, yes, I'm thinking about files I could leave on a web server as opposed
Re:Speaking of encrypting files (Score:3, Insightful)
--Michael
Re:Speaking of encrypting files (Score:3, Informative)
Win32 only I believe though. At least, last I tried it didn't ask me what target platform the executable should be compiled to
E-commerce did it already (Score:5, Insightful)
Now people talk about how they expect encryption to get outlawed. I think Amazon's $19B market cap which depends directly on encryption and eBay's $38B which essentially requires it (not to mention all of the companies which do some of their business online) will prevent this. Then there are VPNs, telecommuting, overseas content outsourcing, and so forth. Encryption is, at this point, something the US economy depends significantly on, and it's not going to get outlawed any time soon.
Re:E-commerce did it already (Score:3, Insightful)
Anybody remember prohibition? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santanya
This strikes me very much familiar along with the "war" on drugs. A previous post touched on this lightly as well. Be it encryption, invite only LAN MP3 share parties, USENET, or any of the other countless work arounds out there...By brandishing their lawyers [slashdot.org] they are in fact creating an underground which society has demonstrated they want to exist, and it will. Instead of trying to make use of this phenomenon, they want to bully people and focus their creative energies on how they can sue. Sounds eerily familiar to the ban of alcohol which founded organized crime in the US and gave a beautiful model for drug running today. In an effort to slay a beast, a new monster was created and the beast was welcomed with open arms in the long run and taxed accordingly to make it profitable and put into a mostly controlled environment. Of course it's not possible to put music into a controlled environment, but iTunes was able to make downloading music a business. Guess they should have focussed on hedging that new market instead of helping to create an underground they will never be able to control or profit from. (Go to concerts if you want the artists to get your money, and boycott RIAA backed media)
Somewhat different perspective... (Score:2)
Encryption is now considered a weapon by the State Department.
I wonder how long it will be before the State Department and the content cartel go head to head over the issue: the content cartel arguing that they need unbreakable encryption to protect their content, and the State Department arguing that they need to limit encryption strength to catch "terrorists". The results will be interesting.
My Favorites Tools for Anonymity (Score:4, Interesting)
http://peertech.org/coder/vagi-amp-laptop.jpg [peertech.org]
errrr (Score:4, Insightful)
The time for user implemented crypto came and went, PGP had potential to put the public good ahead of corporate and government interests.
You can't hide the IP's in a P2P network (Score:3, Informative)
Why Doesn't Shirky Blog?? (Score:3, Interesting)
What I'd like to see is his site as a blog that we could then discuss his essays on. He wouldn't have to take any notice of what we said, but seeing as he's big into online communities and communication networks, you think he might be into the idea.
I know, I'll mail him. Where's his public key?
Worst write-up ever? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:can someone explain (Score:5, Informative)
what eating peas has to do with encyprtion? I'm totally lost.
Shirky means that using encryption is good for you and that's the approach that proponents (Cypherpunks) have used, even though using encryption has historically been difficult and an unpleasant experience for the average user. Hence the "eat your peas" reference, similar to parents who try to get children to eat vegetables which they find distasteful (an unpleasant dining experience).
Re:Cypherpunk is a stupid name (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, DUH, it's a tool, nothing more.
You can say the same about cars, knives, guns and just about anything else.
Re:Cypherpunk is a stupid name (Score:5, Funny)
Especially dihydrogen monoxide.
Re:Cypherpunk is a stupid name (Score:5, Funny)
We've gotta ban that stuff, all the kids are gonna start using it, and then we'll never get them to stop. It's addictive... I've had like 5 doses today...
Re:Cypherpunk is a stupid name (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cypherpunk is a stupid name (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Cypherpunk is a stupid name (Score:3, Funny)
>
> We've gotta ban that stuff, all the kids are gonna start using it, and then we'll never get them to stop. It's addictive... I've had like 5 doses today...
You think you're far gone? I'm cutting my DHMO with caffeine!
Re:Cypherpunk is a stupid name (Score:2, Funny)
>> gonna start using it, and then we'll never get
>> them to stop. It's addictive... I've had like 5
>> doses today...
> You think you're far gone? I'm cutting my DHMO
with caffeine!
I find that when I dilute mine with malt whisky, I can manage with very little DHMO. Still, it's hard to cut back.
Re:Cypherpunk is a stupid name (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, me too! But I think I've found a safe way of ingesting it - I mix it with hops and yeast, allow it to ferment in a large vat, and drink the resulting liquid! You can hardly even tell it's mostly dihydrogen monoxide! We must amend the constitution to ban straight dihydrogen monoxide, and allow only these 'brewed' concotions!
Re:Cypherpunk is a stupid name (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Cypherpunk is a stupid name (Score:5, Insightful)
Encryption, like all technology, is amoral.
Good and evil come from people. This is ultimatly where most legislation fails at stopping evil. You legislate away the technology that evil uses in the hopes of stopping it. However, evil rarely follows laws. So the laws are draconian to compensate for evil not following thems. The end result is that good does not benifit from said technology while evil thumbs thier nose at good.
Encryption will be used for evil, regardless. If you do not outlaw it then the playing field will be level.
Re:Cypherpunk is a stupid name (Score:5, Funny)
"Now you see that Evil will always triumph, because Good is dumb."
Re:Cypherpunk is a stupid name (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cypherpunk is a stupid name (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you do (for one), or at least you would if you thought things through.
Almost no one whom you'd consider to be "Evil" considers themselves to be evil. And they would likely tag some people as "Evil" even if you would disagree with their assessment. And almost no one would agree with you on what is good and what is evil completely. To do that, they'd have to be you.
Which means that if the world were to function by your own self-centered definition of good and evil, you'd be all alone.
Nature itself doesn't have a concept of good or evil. Which means regardless of wether we'd each want a level playing field, it's ultimately a level playing field on which we must play.
Now "society" is just one of the teams on this playing field; a big team, I'd admit, and one you're likely so familiar with as to believe that no others exist, but it's just a team nonetheless. As you point out, your society has created your society's laws and has it's own interest in seeing that people on any other team are placed at a disadvantage. After all, it has to protect those "rights" which your society holds so dearly.
Is it possible that members of some other society might have their own values, profess their own beliefs, and institute their own laws to protect the rights they hold so dear? Some of these might conflict with the values, beliefs, and laws of your society; does that make them "Evil"?
Only a troll would believe so.
Yet even at this point, we're making a judgment call saying that one kind of "society" can be more "good" than another in a way that a "non-society" could never approach. That's a widely held belief, but there's still a lot of time left on the clock. Maybe Douglas Adams was right and some day we'll decide that even the trees were a bad idea, and we should have all stayed in the oceans..."
If you continue to insist that the playing field be tipped selfishly in your favor, then you must admit that, over time, more and more people will become aligned against you in their own self interest. Each time you exclude someone by calling them (or their team/society) "Evil" you build a greater force which sees you the same way. And the stronger you hold your beliefs, the more motivate they are to hold theirs.
I could not possibly have said it better myself.
Re:Cypherpunk is a stupid name (Score:3, Insightful)
Technologies like weaponised anthrax?
Well, yes. Anthrax in the hands of the "good guys" will be used to do research on how to prevent fatalities in the event that one of the "bad guys" tries to use it.
Get it?
Re:Cypherpunk is a stupid name (Score:5, Insightful)
A weapon can be considered technology, and it is still amoral.
A Weapon and/or technology, can only be put to use by people for thier own purpose, good or evil.
"Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns", etc... Look how well outlawing guns in Washington, DC has worked.
Weaponised anthrax could be put to good use, such as using it to find an antidote to protect people from it.
Re:Cypherpunk is a stupid name (Score:5, Funny)
When people use encryption to hurt other people
You mean like when I throw my copy of Applied Cryptography at people's heads?
Re:Cypherpunk is a stupid name (Score:5, Interesting)
Careful! Applied Crypography is a thick book!
I am currently reading that book. (Second Edition) I was amazed at the prophetic words on page 97 (or maybe 99)? The book is discussing Key Escrow and Clipper. He says something to the effect of:
The copyright on the book says 1996. I'm assuming that even in the Second Edition that these words are prophetic. Sorry I don't have the exact quote, and am not positive on the page number because I don't have the book here with me. But you could find the Key Escrew form the TOC.
Re:Cypherpunk is a stupid name (Score:3, Funny)
You mean like when I throw my copy of Applied Cryptography at people's heads?
Or force them to read it! :)
Re:Most poorly written slashdot comment...ever. (Score:4, Funny)
Wait for about three days and Slashdot should have a sufficent ammount of dupes to make it much more clear =P
Sad, but the truth. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Shirky, Clay Shirky - who the hell is he? (Score:3, Informative)
He's another guy who goes "Big Picture" and "Philosophical" because the nuts and bolts of technology, programming, and in this case encryption are (and always will be) beyond him.
He's a lightweight.
If you're still confused: See "Esther Dyson"