Dark wallets, dark markets, hey, why not dark devices too, with dark app
markets. They're really kinda forcing our hand here, for which we probably
should thank them. It's when they slowly add to the regulatory burden that
we can wait too long to react, like a frog can be slowly boiled. I will
always be glad to see TPTB overconfident in their ability to rule, because
with that comes vain proclamations and the Free take notice.

I've been quite concerned that they learned their lesson after they served
up such perfect agar in a flawless petri dish and evolved filesharing from
Napster to DHT-torrents in a mere *decade*. Biologists should be so lucky.

But if the US regulatory bodies have an inkling of this, it seems there is
no shortage of other populous countries with rulers who have not learned
this.

So we carry on, then. Let's make surveillance ever more expensive for them,
while simultaneously choking their source of capital, and see who caves
first. This is a simple conservation of energy equation: as long as we do
not fail to act, we cannot lose.

On Saturday, August 30, 2014, Charlie 'Charles' Shrem <cshrem@???>
wrote:

>
> A Brazilian court has ruled that Secret must be removed from app stores
>> there, and existing installs must be remotely wiped.
>> *The UK’s House of Lords has essentially recommended the extinction of
>> online anonymity
>> <https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140729/10593428044/uk-government-report-recommends-ending-online-anonymity.shtml>*
>
>
> As The Economist recently put it
>> <http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21613160-facial-recognition-systems-are-getting-better-clocking-peoples-clocks>:
>> “the idea that anyone will be able hide for long in Nepal, or anywhere
>> else, looks quaint.”
>
>
> It’s true, particularly enlightened governments may *delay* all this
>> cross-indexing; but* nobody will stop* it. Eventually, ubiquitous public
>> surveillance–a de facto panopticon–will become too easy, and too cheap, to
>> resist.
>
>
> Online anonymity is important because it’s the only kind we can save. The
>> obligatory Oscar Wilde quote: “Man is least himself when he talks in his
>> own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.” Yes,
>> anonymity is frequently–in some contexts, even usually–misused. But
>> eliminating it will not eliminate online vileness.
>
>
>
>> There’s also an extremely important place for pseudonymity, for people
>> who want to maintain a consistent identity without revealing their
>> so-called wallet name. “We need space to experiment and risk-tolerant
>> environments where people can learn,” argues Lydia Laurenson in The
>> Atlantic
>> <http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/a-more-pseudonymous-internet/375704/>.
>> But let’s not confuse the issue; pseudonymity is important, but it is no
>> substitute for true anonymity.
>
>
>
>> As Noam Chomsky once said, “If we don’t believe in free expression for
>> people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” Anonymity isn’t
>> extraneous to free speech; it’s a crucial component.
>>
>
> *Banning all anonymity apps, and requiring all online users to register
>> their identities, are the two worst ideas I have heard in some time *
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
> CharlieShrem.com | *Please **encrypt messages with my PGP key
> <http://charlieshrem.com/contact/>*
>