The Satoshi Revolution – Chapter Five: Privacy, Anonymity, and Pseudonymity (Part Two) – Bitcoin News

The Satoshi Revolution: A Revolution of Rising Expectations.

Section Two : The Moral Imperative of Privacy

Chapter Five: Implementing Crypto Privacy

by Wendy McElroy

Privacy, Anonymity, and Pseudonymity (Chapter Five, Part Two)

It is often said that there is a tradeoff inbetween privacy and security…. Security is defined spil the state of being free from danger or threat. One threat is onslaught. How is one made free from brunt by being assaulted at an airport?…. How is one made free from the threat of being harassed or charged with a crime by the State by the State’s knowing every budge you make, every statement you make, and every financial transaction you make? I say that your security is going DOWN, not up. The State can fend off terrorists by the ordinary methods of policing if it had a mind to. It doesn’t. It chooses to expand into a totalitarian monster.

Privacy will determine the future of cryptocurrencies. Will they proceed to enhance individual freedom, or will they become a government contraption of social control?

Privacy is a human need, which is why the battle overheen its control is so intense. Onveranderlijk surveillance makes it difficult or unlikely for individuals to forge intimate family and romantic bonds, to create, to vote their conscience, to sexually explore, to detect who they are politically and religiously, to proefneming with drugs, or to dissent without danger. Private privacy is also the greatest barrier to government power, which rests on government skill.

“Only criminals need to fear government surveillance” is a common response to the defense of privacy. But every peaceful person is a criminal with something to hide. Why? They have exceeded the speed limit, taken an illegal drug, smuggled cheap booze or cigarettes across a border, made “unauthorized” additions to a house, fibbed to a customs official, understated their income on a tax form, or violated one of the ems of thousands of other laws that criminalize harmless behavior. Government makes criminals of us all. Spil Ayn Zoom explained, “The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One proclaims so many things to be a crime that it becomes unlikely for fellows to live without cracking laws.” Thus, all individuals are under control.

The onslaught on privacy also harms society spil a entire. Consider freedom of speech. I recall being ter a restaurant when a relative went on a post-9/11 rant about how the U.S. wasgoed beginning to feel like Cuba, from which he escaped. His wifey attempted to muffle him, announcing te an adamant whisper, “You can’t say those things te public.” She wasgoed jumpy spil she glanced around to see who could have heard. Surveillance and informants make people reluctant to express opinions that could be used against them te a legal or political manner. Property can be seized, families demolished, and prison ensue. Why would anyone speak out if his children could lose a parent spil a result?

The killing of free speech is one of many political repercussions of ruining privacy. Privacy is a key characteristic that distinguishes a totalitarian, Kafka-esque society from a free one. Can you shut your vuurlijn vanwege and be safe from invasion? Everyone agrees that criminals should not pauze through your locks and treat your figure and possessions spil their own. Why are government agents entitled to do the same thing? They are nothing more than the for-hire workers of an employer whose authority comes because enough people give the employer a thumbs up to invade and steal. They are criminals sanctioned by overeenstemming.

Until recently, many incursions on privacy have bot prevented for no other reason than they were difficult to enforce. And, then, technology arrived. Even with its legendary incompetence, government is now able to surveil spil never before, and many people have grown afraid or complacent, spil the mass frisking at airports proves.

The government onslaught on privacy benefits from a Big Lie: namely, privacy is now unlikely because government surveillance is omnipotent, omniscient. Resistance is futile. Privacy is so last century. Balderdash. Very first of all, technology has always empowered the individual more than it has the government. 2nd, there is a world of difference inbetween “difficult” and “impossible.” Privacy is certainly more difficult te the 21 st century, which only means it takes work. Individuals need to assert actively what they once could take for granted ter order to end the ongoing rape of their gegevens.

What Should You Do?

No one reaction exists. How to treat individual information is up to the lifestyle and goals of each individual.

Before answering, however, some distinctions are useful: privacy versus anonymity, for example. Privacy is the capability to keep private gegevens or activities to yourself, you close the vanwege while using the washroom, for example, the activity is not shameful but neither is it for the world to see. Anonymity is when your activities are semitransparent to the world but the fact that you are the one acting is not. Rick Falkvinge, founder of the very first Pirate Party, elaborated, “The typical example would be if you want to deepthroat the whistle on manhandle of power or other forms of crime ter your organization without taking a chance career and social standing te that group, which is why wij typically have strong laws that protect sources of the free press. You could also postbode such gegevens anonymously online through a VPN, the TOR anonymizing network, or both. This is the analog omschrijving of the anonymous tip-off letterteken, which has bot seen spil a staple diet te our checks and balances.”

Another distinction: there are two types of gegevens – private and public. If gegevens is private – for example, if it is kept behind closed doors or within a limited circle of individual transmissions–then it can remain private. If gegevens is publicly displayed, however, the practical capability to control it is lost. If I discuss my hook-up life on a public bus, for example, I have no business denouncing a blabby eavesdropper who passes on my practices. Unluckily, a good overeenkomst of individual gegevens becomes public through no fault of the person it describes. Government passionately mines information on everyone from birth, and well-meaning parents register children for everything from medical care to government entitlements.

Joyfully, cryptocurrency transfers are the gegevens under discussion, they combine the best aspects of private and public gegevens. They are protected by encryption and anonymity or pseudonymity, while remaining see-through. This is a fresh expression of gegevens that needs to be protected te fresh ways, both from government and from malicious hackers.

The most effective tactics may well be technological, but this article does not address them. The tactics switch permanently and quickly te response to government or hacking threats. And, frankly, albeit some tactics are elementary, like spreading assets overheen a number of wallets, understanding other tactics requires a technological sophistication that I do not wield.

Instead, the article points to variations on privacy strategies that have bot used for decades, if not for centuries. Pick and choose, but it may be best to use them all because the regulatory wolves are circling. Here is a sampling:

Obfuscate or “hide te plain glance.” One way for a person to preserve privacy is to be so inconspicuous or subtle that he is almost unnoticeable. Blend te, or become invisible. Sometimes obfuscation involves participating te so much noise that an eavesdropper cannot distinguish your signal from any other. An example might be sending only modest payments across the blockchain so the transactions join with hundreds of thousands of similar others, all of which are of scant rente because of the puny amounts. Other times, obfuscation means masking activity through mixers or tumblers that further anonymize transactions. The anonymization carries a risk, however. It can constitute a crimson flag to eavesdroppers.

Avoid Centralized Exchanges and Other Gegevens Sharing Centers. If a person wants government to have his financial gegevens, then he should just mail it te an envelope to the government. Of course, signing up with an exchange, like Coinbase, saves a stamp. Centralized exchanges are now an arm of the government. Moreover, they carry their own risks, including bankruptcy or other reasons for withholding funds. Nevertheless, there are good reasons for using exchanges, they permit futures trading and other Wall Street niceties, for example. But decentralized exchanges are preferable, exchanges outside the U.S. or other crypto-hostile nations are preferable, spil are ones that do eis jurisdiction overheen private keys. Even then, wealth should be moved te and out spil quickly spil possible, without permitting the third party to control it for longer than necessary.

Find Discreet Ways to Contant Out. The crypto veteran Kai Sedgwick wrote,

“Bitcoin transactions are semi-anonymous: every transaction on the blockchain is broadcast publicly and visible for all eternity, but the proprietor of each wallet is unknown. Tying addresses to real-world identities is now relatively effortless for the powers-that-be, because everyone has to contant out somewhere, and that usually involves linking bitcoin addresses to canap accounts.” Don’t. Spil much spil possible, overeenkomst with people one-on-one. Seek venues that exchange crypto for bounty cards to stores you regularly use, such spil grocery stores. Be inventive te avoiding the banks and centralized exchanges, they are the “trusted third parties” that Bitcoin wasgoed designed to obsolete.

Use a Privacy Currency. Dozens and dozens of private currencies exist, with several being solid. Albeit most of them use different technologies to preserve privacy, anonymity is a theme. The founder of Zcash explained the philosophy behind that particular privacy currency. “We believe that privacy strengthens social ties and social institutions, protects societies against their enemies, and helps societies to be more peaceful and more prosperous…. A sturdy tradition of privacy is a common feature te rich and peaceful societies, and a lack of privacy is often found te fighting and failing societies.”

Zip It on Public Forums. Public forums, like Facebook or Twitter, are monitored and mined by government and corporations. They are collection points for gegevens, even if a person attempts to postbode anonymously. If social media is necessary for professional reasons, then use it to the nude ondergrens. Never postbode anything on social media that you wouldn’t waterput on the vuurlijn pagina of the Fresh York Times, and that includes crypto forums.

Be Careful ter Writing Down Information. Do not write down your private keys, for example, without having a secure, undisclosed place to store them.

The government is coming for crypto, which means it is coming for users. Its vooraanzicht line attack will be an attempt to eliminate privacy, it realizes privacy is the backbone of cryptocurrency spil a freedom implement, even when users do not. Now it the time for heightened vigilance. To paraphrase the comedienne Lily Tomlin, “No matter how paranoid I get, it is never enough to keep up.”

Related movie: Nick and Chris Play Robot Warlords Scene 1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *