Did the cryptography revolution begin too late?

[Sjalq]

One of my great fears, and I'm sure some of you share it, is that an oppressive and dictatorial style of government will become the norm and that these local governments will have supranational structures imposing on them the equivalent of one world government.

One of the ways that the people can remain free is by privately controlling the means of communication. The internet is for instance 99% privately owned. The entire government portion can be shut down to tomorrow and the world might not even notice. Unfortunately the political class specialize in showing up to a private party late and then shouting "lets get this party started!" as they impose rations and regulations on previously content happy party goers. I suspect this is why they call their groupings "parties"

The internet has not escaped their attention and obviously we see their fingers in everything. They shout terrorism and child pornography to high heaven but forget that the people themselves are vested in eradicating child pornography and that terrorism is mostly aimed at governments (directly or indirectly).

Cryptography of course makes the common man stronger than the NSA. Thanks to communications protocols based on redundancy and privacy ensuring software it has become possible to read your e-mail from almost anywhere with more secrecy than the US military can apply to its top secret documents. Thanks to cryptography applied to VPNs I can bypass "US only" restrictions and access sites like Hulu.com. The cypher-sphere creates a place of freedom and anonymity that is guaranteed by mathematics and not the whim of an elected official.

My question:
Do you think we will prevail or will government grow until it crushes its host?

[Cryptoman]

It will be an epic battle, but we will prevail.  Our social structure is evolving to a decentralized nature.

I like your line "The cypher-sphere creates a place of freedom and anonymity that is guaranteed by mathematics and not the whim of an elected official."  I may steal it. 

[em3rgentOrdr]

It will be an epic battle, but we will prevail.  Our social structure is evolving to a decentralized nature.

I like your line "The cypher-sphere creates a place of freedom and anonymity that is guaranteed by mathematics and not the whim of an elected official."  I may steal it. 

^^^ WIN.

Yes, the cat has been released out of the box.  PGP has been released to the public.  All networking standards by the IEEE are open.  It is too late for the government to turn back.  It will be an epic battle, but we will prevail.

[grondilu]

The cypher-sphere creates a place of freedom and anonymity that is guaranteed by mathematics and not the whim of an elected official.

True.   Governments are powerless in cypherspace.  There are no guns nor jails there.   Force in cypherspace is mathematics, and thanks to free software, it belongs to whoever wants to use it.

[em3rgentOrdr]

The cypher-sphere creates a place of freedom and anonymity that is guaranteed by mathematics and not the whim of an elected official.

True.   Governments are powerless in cypherspace.  There are no guns nor jails there.   Force in cypherspace is mathematics, and thanks to free software, it belongs to whoever wants to use it.

Where's the "Like", "Thumbs Up", or "+" button on this simple machines forum?  So many great quotes here...

[caveden]

The cypher-sphere creates a place of freedom and anonymity that is guaranteed by mathematics and not the whim of an elected official.

True.   Governments are powerless in cypherspace.  There are no guns nor jails there.   Force in cypherspace is mathematics, and thanks to free software, it belongs to whoever wants to use it.

Yeah, but, you know, the cypherspace needs a physical space to exist... The Chinese government is already successfully blocking Tor, for example. Yes, Chinese geeks manage to escape, but once a technology becomes popular enough to be more accessible to not-so-geek folks, then the government can always block if they are really determined. They could go as far as creating a "whitelist" sort of blocking instead of the blacklist model they use right now. (by whitelist I mean you block everything with the exception of a specific list, instead of allowing everything with the exception of a specific list)

It's complicated... but anyway, I also think that cryptography+p2p networks will help society a lot, for sure.

[gene]

Controlling the infrastructure is more important than anything else. This is analogous to workers controlling the means of production.

http://www.libertyandsolidarity.org/node/104

This interesting read explores some of the dynamics involved with the many facets of crypto-anarchism. It looks at the issue as a class struggle. Bitcoin is specifically mentioned. I should also note that none of the ideas here are new. These issues have been discussed since the early 90s.

[em3rgentOrdr]

The Chinese government is already successfully blocking Tor, for example. Yes, Chinese geeks manage to escape, but once a technology becomes popular enough to be more accessible to not-so-geek folks, then the government can always block if they are really determined.

I didn't belive you, but apparently it's true that China is getting better at blocking Tor. "Here's a graph of returning users to the Tor Network from China":



So looks like they blocked the regular channels a little over a year ago, but according to blog.torproject.org, "most Tor users in China switched to non-public relays, called bridges, over the past few months. Interestingly, the GFW has also started blocking some of the more popular bridges":



So what that means, is we should help out our chinese bretheren and setup a Tor bridge.

They could go as far as creating a "whitelist" sort of blocking instead of the blacklist model they use right now. (by whitelist I mean you block everything with the exception of a specific list, instead of allowing everything with the exception of a specific list)

This is when Steganogrphy - the art and science of writing hidden messages in such a way that no one, apart from the sender and intended recipient, suspects the existence of the message - comes into play.  Basically you have to embed your cryptographic messages inside 'whitelisted' communication channels disguised as legitimate media.

[gene]

Crypto is a tool. What is most important is the infrastructure -- the physical network, which is owned by companies and governments. The networks we build upon them (tor, bitcoin, torrent, etc) are still ultimately vulnerable. If your ISP decides to make your upstream 1kbps, then you are effectively a "content consumer" and no longer a peer in a network. Carrier grade NAT (more and more common) can also essentially cut you off from participating in p2p. These trends have been apparent for many years now.

[Zerbie]

UK can now demand data decryption on penalty of jail time - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/10/uk-can-now-demand-data-decryption-on-penalty-of-jail-time.ars

That kills bitcoin, freenet, and Tor in the U.K.  If it is on your computer and you are believed to hold the key, you could go to jail for 5 years.  If this law was further modified to require you to have all keys to encrypted data on your computer, then it further hampers freedom.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Crypto is a tool. What is most important is the infrastructure -- the physical network, which is owned by companies and governments. The networks we build upon them (tor, bitcoin, torrent, etc) are still ultimately vulnerable. If your ISP decides to make your upstream 1kbps, then you are effectively a "content consumer" and no longer a peer in a network. Carrier grade NAT (more and more common) can also essentially cut you off from participating in p2p. These trends have been apparent for many years now.

You are making an excellent point.  I was also listening to the latest "Thinking Liberty" podcast, and they mentioned this same thing.  The fact that us internet users do not actually own the wires and switches that make up the internet is a serious issue.  Of course having a democratic government take over the internet from the corporations would probably make things worse.  The crux of the problem is that the current structure of the internet is not a p2p, but rather extremely hierarchical with the major corporations and the governments controlling the backbones.  I think the solution is that 'we' actually need to start wiring up our neighborhoods ourselves.

[caveden]

So what that means, is we should help out our chinese bretheren and setup a Tor bridge.

It won't help that much, it's quite easy to block all Tor bridges.

This is when Steganogrphy - the art and science of writing hidden messages in such a way that no one, apart from the sender and intended recipient, suspects the existence of the message - comes into play.  Basically you have to embed your cryptographic messages inside 'whitelisted' communication channels disguised as legitimate media.

I have a hard time imagining services being provided to a not-so-geek audience by such means...

[fabianhjr]

Here is the bigger question.

We already have FreeNets.
We already have Bittorrent for filesharing.
We have BitCoin for money.
DNS in progress
Any more already implemented or being implemented?

Can we decentralize governments, crowd-funding/crowd-sourcing, etc? What can't we decentralize at this moment?

[FatherMcGruder]

The fact that us internet users do not actually own the wires and switches that make up the internet is a serious issue.  Of course having a democratic government take over the internet from the corporations would probably make things worse.

Would it really be so bad for a town or city to lay down its own fiber or set up its own wireless? What about an ISP run on a cooperative model, whereby the customers owned it?

[caveden]

Crypto is a tool. What is most important is the infrastructure -- the physical network, which is owned by companies and governments.

True. That's also why I created this topic, to try to see if people already know of "alternative infrastructures".

The main problem with internet access - in what concerns avoiding censorship - is that it depends on physical infrastructure to provide the link between ISPs and clients. Even wireless networks like 3G need antennas who can't be too far from the end points. By too far I mean a continent away.

The only type of link that can avoid this is satellite. For example, somebody could launch satellites that would take connections from anywhere in the world and, by having a physical infrastructure in a place controlled by a still-not-so-authoritarian government, link censorship victims to the open internet, anonymously and cersorshipfree. Of course, authoritarian governments would forbid their citizens from accessing such network, but as long as the equipment needed to connect to it is cheap enough and small enough to be hidden, I suppose it would be difficult to trace down everyone. And with bitcoins, clients could pay for their access anonymously too - the problem here would be how to obtain bitcoins in such a hostile place... I imagine it would be almost like drug dealing...

Now, all that said... launching satellites is expensive! I suppose the costs of launching a satellite largely outcomes the revenues one would expect to have from it. That's why I asked on that topic if it would be possible to hijack those US military satellites for such purpose.

[caveden]

Can we decentralize governments

They want to: http://seasteading.org/
I hope they manage.

[gene]

Of course having a democratic government take over the internet from the corporations would probably make things worse.

I'm in favor of democracy. A truly democratic government by definition would tend to decentralize control and would look very little like what we currently regard as governments. Don't mistake what we have in western countries with democracy. That is all just garbage they teach kids in school - what we have are republics and parliaments. As FatherMcGruder mentioned, a democratically controlled infrastructure may look like a co-op. There are small manufacturing shops in the US that take this form. The workers and engineers own the factory and manage it democratically, not like most companies. Caveden, it is certainly possible for networks to be organized at the local level and extended, using a co-op or even volunteer model. Some networks like this already exist. Bitcoin can be a complementary tool to raise capital and establish more and more reliable networks. I'm not smart enough to foresee how this would happen, but history shows that these sorts of societal structures are at least possible. Pre-Columbian Native American cultures in North America give a good example.

[MoonShadow]

Of course having a democratic government take over the internet from the corporations would probably make things worse.

I'm in favor of democracy. A truly democratic government by definition would tend to decentralize control and would look very little like what we currently regard as governments. Don't mistake what we have in western countries with democracy. That is all just garbage they teach kids in school - what we have are republics and parliaments. As FatherMcGruder mentioned, a democratically controlled infrastructure may look like a co-op. There are small manufacturing shops in the US that take this form. The workers and engineers own the factory and manage it democratically, not like most companies. Caveden, it is certainly possible for networks to be organized at the local level and extended, using a co-op or even volunteer model. Some networks like this already exist. Bitcoin can be a complementary tool to raise capital and establish more and more reliable networks. I'm not smart enough to foresee how this would happen, but history shows that these sorts of societal structures are at least possible. Pre-Columbian Native American cultures in North America give a good example.

This is all true, but real democracy doesn't scale well, and is far from conflict free.  Most people think of federated representative parlimentary governance whenever someone says "democracy", so there will continue to be much confusion without a common definition.  The US isn't a democracy now, and never has been, because the framers knew that democracy was flawed, and didn't trust that it was sustainable in any context.  Our history has proven them correct.  Keep in mind that prior to 1913, we didn't have central banking, franctional reserve banking, Senators were not elected, and there was no federal income tax.  We still don't directly elect the US president.  The US is a federated republic quite intentionally, and most of Europe are parlimentary republics for similar reasons.  Anyone who advocates for increased democracy at the state or national level is advocating for majority rule, and the rights of a minority have no meaning in that context.  Such a person is either a fool or a Sith Lord.

[MoonShadow]

Now, all that said... launching satellites is expensive! I suppose the costs of launching a satellite largely outcomes the revenues one would expect to have from it. That's why I asked on that topic if it would be possible to hijack those US military satellites for such purpose.

I can say this much.  If it is a satillite that you are aware of, it's not really a military satillite.  It's probably a honeypot, and any attempt to do anything with it will draw the very kind of attention that you do not want.  If you are a particularly talented ham radio operator, with much experience with satillite tracking (or a foreign government geek who's job this would be) you can find real military satillites.   You might even be able to track them adaquately, but most military satillites spend most of their time 'dark', just listening.

I would not consider it realistic to hijack either a honeypot or a real military satillite for any purpose.

[gene]

This is all true, but real democracy doesn't scale well, and is far from conflict free.

It depends which point of view you take. If you take the point of view of a rich landowner, then democracy sure doesn't scale well. If you are a regular person, it scales a bit better.

Most people think of federated representative parlimentary governance whenever someone says "democracy", so there will continue to be much confusion without a common definition.

That is the purpose of propaganda.

The US isn't a democracy now, and never has been, because the framers knew that democracy was flawed, and didn't trust that it was sustainable in any context.

Quite true. They knew that they needed to establish a government that would protect the interests of rich landowners from regular people. They were very explicit about how they regarded non-property holders - as dangerous and stupid masses from which the rich needed to be protected. Madison and Hamilton both were shockingly open about it.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Senate

Many of the founding fathers greatly admired the British government. At the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton called the British government "the best in the world," and said he "doubted whether anything short of it would do in America." In his "Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States," John Adams said "the English Constitution is, in theory, both for the adjustment of the balance and the prevention of its vibrations, the most stupendous fabric of human invention." In the minds of many of the Founding Fathers, the Senate would be an American kind of House of Lords.[1] John Dickinson said the Senate should "consist of the most distinguished characters, distinguished for their rank in life and their weight of property, and bearing as strong a likeness to the British House of Lords as possible."

I leave it to the readers here to decide what they think is right or wrong about what they thought.

The same ideas are now working for the interests of large corporations, which essentially own governments. Incidentally, none of what I am writing here is particularly controversial, but I encourage anyone who is interested to investigate these matters on their own (i.e. don't take my word for anything).

Our history has proven them correct.

Yes. If there is great inequality, then a democracy will tend to eliminate the inequality. To maintain inequality, democracies must be avoided at all costs. This is not just US history. This is the history of western civilization.

Keep in mind that prior to 1913, we didn't have central banking, franctional reserve banking, Senators were not elected, and there was no federal income tax.  We still don't directly elect the US president.  The US is a federated republic quite intentionally, and most of Europe are parlimentary republics for similar reasons.

And you are saying these are good things? I think you must be on the wrong forum.

Anyone who advocates for increased democracy at the state or national level is advocating for majority rule, and the rights of a minority have no meaning in that context.  Such a person is either a fool or a Sith Lord.

Your last sentence articulates well the contempt for democracy inculcated by western "liberal" education. This thinking leads to centralization of power and capital, which are exactly what frameworks like bitcoin are designed to dismantle.