https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-zooko-wilcox-ceo-of-the-zcash-company-ask-me-anything-t5413.htmlHello Zooko,
I'm interested in reading your goals and motivations for taking on anonymity in general or anonymous digital cash specifically as your priority project?
Haven't you seen the
new laws coming (eventually in all Five Eyes countries I've heard from reliable sources)
that will ban end-to-end encryption?
To that end do you expect to support a viewkey or other way that users individually or a global backdoor, so that Zcash can be compliant with the lurch towards a 666 NWO which seems to be rapidly taking form now (and I assert will accelerate with the full global contagion sovereign debt collapse 2017 -2020)?
I am all for the ideology, but I am also pragmatic. We as society may have to fight with social networking and the political-economic revolution of a DIY economy, e.g. self-publishing, 3D printing, etc.. I have been looking at the
concept of a decentralized social network. Any comments?
Sincerely,
TPTB_need_war
AnonyMint
Shelby Moore III
Bold my emphasis. The proposed legislation in the United Kingdom does not ban end to end encryption. What it does however is to require those companies that provide
proprietary encryption products to retain a back door key and make this back door key available to law enforcement.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11970391/Internet-firms-to-be-banned-from-offering-out-of-reach-communications-under-new-laws.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1446482200 There is a critical difference here in that FLOSS end to end encryption tools remain perfectly legal and secure while proprietary end to end encryption tools would have a back door. This is not unlike the FinCEN guidance in the United States
https://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html where proprietary development funding models for crypto currency (using the emission to fund development) will likely lead to a legal requirement for MSB registration while FLOSS development funding models can retain their decentralized virtual currency designation and avoid the MSB registration requirement. In Canada there was a proposed law that did not pass that required providers of email servers to retain records for law enforcement with an
exception for those who ran their own mail server from their own homes.. A more relevant question to ask would have been: Given that you plan to use a portion of the emission over the next 4 years to fund your company, have you registered as an MSB with FinCEN or have you obtained guidance from FinCEN that MSB registration is not required in your case?
The pattern here is starting to become apparent. Click I agree on some company's terms for the use of proprietary software and become a slave, click I do not agree and use FLOSS tools instead and remain free.
Thanks ArticMine.
Yes I am aware that the proposed legislation in the UK (also afaik similar legislation proposed in the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia) only applies to service providers who offer encrypted services, not to open source code which users independently obtain, compile, and run on their own initiative. I was vaguely aware of this pending legislation and then I became more focused on it during my private discussions last month with the GadgetCoin team who have a P2P streaming technology named Streemo. The governments are not stupid to try to ban activity they can't possibly enforce (thus making the government look impotent), i.e. the government can't monitor/enforce against what each private citizen does in their home.
But I argue effectively the direction is to ban end-to-end encryption in general that does not provide a back door to national security agencies. The government can regulate the ISPs (internet service providers) and ban end-to-end encryption protocols that do not include a decryption key for national security agencies.
I have also explained that using home computers as servers over asymmetric upload bandwidth home ISPs is a Communist economic plan (as I warned Bittorrent back in 2008 and offered them an economic solution for their tit-for-tat algorithm but they ignored me). And that protocols which allow illegal activities from unregulated home servers will be banned by ISPs and hosting providers. If you know of any technology to hide a protocol's patterns such that ISPs can't identify it, please enlighten me. There is some discussion of "Censorship resistance" in
section 2.4 of Synereo's white paper, but that still seems to be inadequate.
Simply put, it is impossible to fight the government when there are choke points in the system which the government can effectively regulate. This is just common sense.
I added the following to that question for Zooko:
What I hear from the Gadgetcoin developers and UK based legal experts is that the UK government will create a law so companies such as Apple, Google or any service providers will no longer be able to incorporate encryption that even they cannot decipher. (The above Telegraph article summarizes that). It means all software service providers, cloud business, SasS providers will have to introduce a master key within their online services. This new proposed law has a huge implications on all online services and even on Bitcoin: if a business run a centralised server then the master key will be mandatory. IMHO even Bitcoin miners will be subject of the new law. I predict the Bitcoin foundation and core developers modify the protocol to comply with the new laws. They will have no choice but to comply.
Witnessing the hysteria about terrorism in Europe and US (50% of the US presidential debates is all about terrorism and security) this law will be adopted by all developed and third world counties.
Any business plans which aim monetize secure, encrypted communication or anonymity is a fantasy. Due to the incoming laws such secure, encrypted communication that hides the content from law enforcement won't be tolerated by the government.