(C) Alec Muffett's DropSafe blog.
Author Name: Alec Muffett
This story was originally published on allecmuffett.com. [1]
License: CC-BY-SA 3.0.[2]
The dangerous subtext within the concerned-dot-tech “Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy”
2022-06-02 20:17:22+00:00
Back in 1991 I published an open-source password cracking tool which defined the state of the art for the next 5+ years, so much so that echoes of it can be found in all major password crackers of today.
Some folk criticised me for doing this, choosing words like these to do so:
I know that in general it’s bad form to take a single quote out of context and use it to critique an entire essay (
https://concerned.tech/) — but I do feel that this time it’s deserved.
The concerned-dot-tech essay has had extensive technical debunking, e.g.:
1/
https://prestonbyrne.com/2022/06/01/debunking-the-crypto-critics-letter/
2/
https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/1532039624046125059
…but that’s not what bothers me.
I/others spent literal years, fighting for the right to publish code that was then illegal (i.e. cryptography under ITAR) or which some considered immoral or profane (e.g. “full disclosure” for security bugs).
I maintain that stance; but many in civil society today, disagree.
You Cant Do That Eric Cartman GIF
In their defence, they may not realise what they are saying; but each time $ACTIVISTS call for $SOFTWARE to be denied to $DEMOGRAPHIC because $MORALITY, they are calling for knowledge, code, or speech, to be constrained by audience.
This inevitably leads to illiberal outcomes.
How Could I Have Been So Foolish Eric Cartman GIF
“Not all innovation is unqualifiedly good; not everything that we can build should be built” — that phrase could be thrown at intrusion tools, privacy tools, even @torproject, because all of these tools are dual-use, and the thing which divides “good” from “bad” use, is intent.
For What Purpose Butters Stotch GIF
So anyone who says “not everything that we can build should be built” — poses a question, the question being of course:
Q: who decides what should/should-not be built, and what will they need in order to exercise that power?
There are only 2 solutions for such arbiters:
a) everyone on the internet is given an identity, there is no more anonymity, and whether you can use the software is dependent upon your identity & reputation; or…
b) wholesale bans on <shapes of software>, even if open-source, because <shape> of <tool> makes it wicked.
Heidi Gardner Flirting GIF by Saturday Night Live
Concrete example — passwords crackers:
a) you may only use a password cracker if you are a licensed system administrator of known good character
b) nobody may use password crackers because they are wicked
Thankfully the internet (and open source) do not work this way. Not yet.
Jimchi Jim Chi Asmr GIF
Hence my decades-old, innocuous strapline:
“Everybody deserves good security”
Everybody does. Even the really bad guys. Because otherwise we have tyranny, weak infrastructure, & (eventually) institutional corruption as everyone works around restriction.
> This talk will explore that topic and look at ways to design technology that keeps everybody safe.
Speaking as the person who coined this phrase I look forward to @runasand's interpretation, not least since my take has sometimes upset folk with its Benthamite perspective.
https://t.co/7WQiO3zUYu — Alec Muffett (@AlecMuffett) June 2, 2022
So, for that reason, I consider the concerned-dot-tech essay to be deeply dangerous — as likewise I do all people who opine that $TECHNOLOGY is wicked merely because of its shape, feature, or lack-of-feature.
Because such denies the importance of intent, and ignores dual-use.
Nicole Franzel Bb22 GIF
Originally tweeted by Alec Muffett (@AlecMuffett) on 2022/06/02.
[END]
[1] URL:
https://alecmuffett.com/article/16165
[2] URL:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
DropSafe Blog via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/alecmuffett/
