At 10:59 AM -0800 2/29/00, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
> I'm not speaking for them, but I
>sense fear of regulatory headaches if monkey wrenchers, like the
>ideas you suggested, were to bring on the attention of the government
>in a negative way. Remember the power to regulate is the power to
>destroy.
I wasn't calling for them to be regulated, of course.
Frankly, thiis "be nice to them" line of reasoning is being offered more
and more often lately.
"Don't do anything weird or unsavory with Freedom, else governments will
step in and shut them down."
"Don't send messages designed to get E-Gold to freeze accounts, else it
will bring on the attention of government."
Or, perhaps,
"Hey, so what if Bassomatic Encryptor is weak! Don't publically critique it
or the regulators may impose standards for crypto."
I call them as I see them. Some of the products appearing lately have
fundamental flaws which limit their applicability for interesting uses. At
best, they are conveniences for low security uses. At worst, they are wrong
directions.
I have no interest in seeing E-Gold either uses, regulated, or ignored. But
their willingness to freeze accounts and then "dare" users to sue in U.S.
courts smacks of their being just another uninteresting bank.
Of course, the very fact that there _could_ be something they call
"suspicious" means their model is fatally flawed. I hope everybody
understands why this is so.
--Tim May
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
