December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: FCPUNX:In response to Declan's questions about crypto.com
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:09 PM 9/26/97 -0400, Jonah Seiger wrote: > 4. CDT continues to support efforts to relax encryption export controls. And that is where you are wrong: We need crypto legislation like we need nine inch nails hammered through our skulls. Any legislative attention to crypto is bad and dangerous, as we have been saying for years, and has just been dramatically proven once again. Business lobby groups are intermediaries, and therefore serve two masters, both the politicians and the businessmen, not one master. Frequently they serve the interests of the politicians at the expense of their donors, at the expense of the goals that the lobby group is supposed to pursue. > We also recognize the realities of politics. No matter how much any of us > might wish it to be true, members of the Commerce Committee were not > willing to stand up and simply oppose everything. This is a bunch of crap: It is highly likely that no bill will go through. Most bills die. This bill should die. Killing bills is always politically safer than passing them, doing nothing cannot get you into trouble. > It was not in the > cards. White and Markey offered them a chance to defeat Oxley while > throwing a small bone to law enforcement. We believe that passage of SAFE > with the White-Markey amendment, despite the problems with the criminal > provisions, is on balance, a step forward in the fight for encryption > policy reform. This is untrue and dishonest. No bill at all is the best step forward, and doing nothing is always easiest to attain. > As always, I am happy to respond to queries about CDT's positions and > tactics, but I am not interested in engaging in public flame throwing. The CDT is ultimately a business lobby group, because it gets most of its funding from businesses. It is therefore potentially subject to the same corruption as other business lobbies. Business lobby groups are intermediaries, and therefore serve two masters, both the politicians and the businessmen, not one master. Frequently they serve the interests of the politicians at the expense of their donors, at the expense of the goals that the lobby group is supposed to pursue. Suppose for example you have a lobby group that represents the widget industry. On the one hand, the CEO of General Widgets might ring them up and say: "We are being trashed by these great japanese widgets, and unless something is done about it we might have to reduce prices or improve quality", and the lobby organization has a little chat with some tame politicians about the terrible suffering the Japanese are inflicting on American workers. That is the way lobby groups are supposed to work, but seldom do. On the other hand sometimes the politician (or a gofer on his staff), rings the lobby and says: "I need a million dollars fast: What potential political action gets the chairman of General Widgets waking up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night? What could destroy the widget industry, and yet be politically feasible?" Shortly thereafter the lobbyist has a little chat with chairman of General Widgets about forthcoming legislation. The lobby group gets a big bag of money, some of which it passes on to the politician, and the threatened legislation evaporates until the next election. To be a successful lobby group, the CDT needs to get its fingerprints on legislation, so that it can make threats and promises to businessmen in the computer industry. Thus the CDT's best interests as an organization are contrary to our desires and contrary to the announced aims of the organization. Legislation, any legislation, is in their interests and legislation, any legislation is against our interests. Our interests, and the CDT's interest are opposed with no apparent mutual good possible. Now it is possible that the CDT is virtuously pursuing its supposed goals, rather than its practical interests. We should consider the available evidence in order to infer what it is in fact up to. According to Dave Barry the word "politics" derives from the Greek "poly" meaning many, and "ticks" meaning small disgusting bloodsucking parasites. In order to be well funded, the CDT needs government regulation of the net. The kind of regulation that would be most effective in ensuring large donations would be regulation that compels internet businessmen to lobby the government. for example regulations that make impossible, inconsistent, and contradictory requirements on those who provide software, hardware, and services, for example a demand that big companies police the net in ways that even governments would find extremely difficult, such as the British child porn crackdown, or legislation which if properly crafted would have the effect of giving some businessmen a monopoly of some aspect of the net, and putting other businessmen out of business, for example legislation that requires case by case approval of software, or legislation that compels the businessman to invade his customers privacy, and also prohibits him from invading that privacy unless he has a waiver issued by the state. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Don't go there...
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.xensei.com/users/hubcom/units.htm

1 0

Re: write up AP for FC++
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <3.0.3.32.19970927210451.006b202c(a)schloss.li>, on 09/27/97 at 09:04 PM, Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> said: >At 06:49 PM 9/27/97 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: >>Tim May wrote: >>>>I'm now mildly amused that Bell is being seen as the inventor of anonymous >>>>and untraceable murder markets, with clueless journalists seeking >>>>information on his discovery. But, hey, better he rot in jail than me. >> >>At 04:27 PM 8/18/97 -0700, Blanc wrote: >>> A presentation from you at FC98 would remind everyone of your own initial >>> writings on the subject and provide you with due credit (better credit than >>> a jail/rotting sentence). I can't think of anyone else who would be more >>> qualified for this. >> >>Freedom of speech is protected by nothing stronger than the cluelessness >>of our masters. >> >>If you publish your idea in appropriate forums, you can get away with it. >> >>If you go from forum to forum singing your idea like a broken record, >>and flogging it like soap, you will probably go to jail. >> >>I see no point in explaining our ideas so thoroughly and repeatedly >>that even cops and politicians start to understand them. >Try to keep in mind that Bell went to jail for crimes only semi-related >to his AP ranting. >The AP ranting is just the way he managed to attract attention. >Moral: If you're going to rant about AP you better be squeeky clean >first. Moral: If you're going to rant about AP you better have a system in place to take out the rat-bastards before they come looking for you. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNC5TOI9Co1n+aLhhAQHvqAQAiFDWTe/75ncZKsw+1zqOYhHqa3Igat/c EtLaQK0syZdIJak//qHxuTbva6o7/S+MAeRpwzQIITFWwXqCIF8rdMCZQkm308Au eprjZa1rV8qxYdG7cJBYOUXp6oIk6rNTmK1s9wRG/rnkVXD3OMdW7n8XfAyCGTNV GUsA3iijYNc= =FfZc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: write up AP for FC++
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:49 PM 9/27/97 -0700, James A. Donald wrote: > > If you publish your idea in appropriate forums, you can get away with it. > > > > If you go from forum to forum singing your idea like a broken record, > > and flogging it like soap, you will probably go to jail. > > > > I see no point in explaining our ideas so thoroughly and repeatedly > > that even cops and politicians start to understand them. At 09:04 PM 9/27/97 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: > Try to keep in mind that Bell went to jail for crimes only semi-related to > his AP ranting. Not too many people face a lengthy period of imprisonment without trial, followed by a lengthy period of imprisonment without sentence, for using a false social security number and possession of a stink bomb. Actually Jim Bell's greatest offence was being broke. I have seen some truly laughable convictions of people with public defenders. He who pays the piper calls the tune. If you are charged with politically incorrect crimes, and have a public defender, you have two prosecutors and no defender, and under those circumstances a prosecutor could convict a dog of being a ham sandwich, and have him sentenced to death by drowning in mustard. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Message
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 27 Sep 1997 21:04:51 -0500 Black Unicorn foolishly blurted: > Try to keep in mind that Bell went to jail for crimes only > semi-related to his AP ranting. > The AP ranting is just the way he managed to attract attention. Try to keep in mind that that is how the government plays the game, here and elsewhere. Even in countries that have laws against irritating the government a hip regime always now tries to prosecute for only semi-related or even completely unrelated "crimes." Maybe you, too, could be found to have engaged in juvenile activities like ordering noxious substances, much to your surprise and horror, after calling attention to yourself in a way that touches a sensitive spot on the body bureaucratic. Although Bell might in fact be a complete idiot and have given them the levers they needed to destroy him, it would be a grave mistake to assume that there is any truth at all to the charges. This is political prosecution a la 1997 in the land of the Freeh, home of the slave. In this climate the risk of expressing any opinion that touches government's hot buttons is that you will be investigated. Being investigated can easily ruin you, being charged almost certainly will -- both pre-trial punishments that make a mockery of the entire set of constitutional protections against prosecutorial and judicial abuses. The modern equivalent of the Crown's former ability to target someone with a law is the ability of the government to mine a rich cache of laws for the one that can circumstantially be applied to the victim. The odd thing that works in their favor is that anyone who practices as he preaches is more likely than others to have vulnerabilities of the sort government looks for when targetting him. It's one of those things that provides the black hats with a heavy strategic advantage. Not that they're satisfied with that, of course. They'll use it, but they'll also black bag you, maybe send in some orders in your name to chemical supply houses, whatever it takes once you get on their list.

1 0

Re: Crypto Legality Question
by jim＠mentat.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Burnes writes: > ACME corporation, a mostly Canadian outfit with a major > subsidiary in the US, wants to roll out corporate wide crypto. > > Most of their network operations are in the US except one > of their offices in Ireland. > > Question (1): Can they buy a strong crypto package in the > US and physically roll it out to both Canada and Ireland. I suspect not. Re-exporting US crypto to Ireland without a license doesn't make it. Perhaps the fact that they're only using it within their company would make it OK, but I'd check with the attorneys. > Question (2): If Canada is OK, but Ireland is out of the > question, can Irish employees simply procure a compatible > strong crypto package from, say, Finland? This assumes Very likely. An American would want to be careful not to give any Sekrit Data to the furriners, but perhaps the rules are different for Canadians. Easier yet, they can buy Canadian-grown strong Crypto from Entrust, for example, and ship it both to their Irish and U.S. branches. A guy from Entrust told me last week that there was some consternation from Ft. Meade when they first started shipping overseas this year, and after they were shown the details and legalities they backed off. Jim Gillogly jim(a)acm.org

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:CDT complains to my editors after post to cypherpunks
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:34 AM 9/26/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: > The larger issue is that the CDT/VTW "players" are showing their > willingness to trade away the civil liberties of us all for a few minor > tidbits thrown (they think) to corporate sponsors. In fact, the problem is not corporate sponsors. Rather the problem is that lobbying groups often tend to get captured by the government. They want to get their fingerprints on legislation, so that they can extort money from their corporate sponsors, and are therefore eager to do the politicians bidding in any way whatever in order that they can get their fingerprints on any legislation whatever. This problem is unrelated to civil liberties issues. Lobby groups for the milk industry, small business, etc, are infamous for selling out the interests of the businesses that support them. I am not saying that the CDT is guilty of this, but the fact it persists in trying to get legislation passed under present circumstances should not only alarm civil libertarians, it should also alarm big business. > Those who work near Washington tend to get pulled into this power vortex. > They become functionaries, advisors, consultants, lobbyists, or even, > sometimes, elected politicians themselves. > > This is probably why EFF belatedly realized that their soul was being lost > and got the hell out. That so few news magazines delved into this is > telling.] My congratulations to EFF, who I have vigorously flamed in the past. I hope that one day I will be able to similarly congratulate the CDT. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: Memo From... (1 of 7)
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Part 1 of 7) The latest spin document on resistance to tyranny from The People's Democratic Republic of Washington requires some translation to be understood by normal human beings: > State of Washington > Washington State Patrol > General Administration Building > P.O. Box 42600 > Olympia, Washington 98504-2600 > (360) 753-6540 > > ... > >FROM: Representative Karen Schmidt, Chairman [sic] > Organized Crime Advisory Board > >SUBJECT: Paper Terrorism A contradiction in terms if there ever was one. "paper terrorism," to be a meaningful term, would have to be something like the dropping of 500 lb. bundles of paper on unsuspecting, innocent people. "Terrorism" means violent attacks on the populace to instill fear and uncertainty. Unless someone is killing people with paper, the subject of this document is pure propaganda. > It has been brought to my attention that anti- > government organizations have been utilizing a tactic > called "paper terrorism" to effectively disable government. It is interesting that "they" can only think in terms of "organizations." It may not dawn on them until it is too late that the future is one of individual action. No meetings to spy on. No informants. No membership lists or memos to seize. "Called?" Called by whom? By government? Notice that this is an example of the definition of a new term to suit those attempting to suppress opposition. It is a standard tactic. Note that there seems to be a key admission in the previous sentence. She seems to be saying that the tactics she is about to describe actually work. > Commonly, public officials are personally targeted. See various works on the history of the American Revolution for perspective. > This widespread practice is accomplished by overburdening > our communications, business, or judicial systems with > frivolous or repetitive petitions, property liens, and > small claims court actions. I thought that those frivolous systems of the government were already overburdened by "normal" business. So now thay wish to suppress those whose politics they don't like by classifying their communications, business, court petitions, liens and small claims actions as not only frivolous, but "terrorism." Interesting. >Enclosed is a brief explanation of this process. If you feel you >are a victim of "paper terrorism," I encourage you to contact the >Washington State Patrol, Organized Crime Intelligence Unit, in >Olympia at (360) 753-3277, for assistance. Note that "Intelligence" in law enforcement means keeping files and lists of names. It means prejudicing victims in subsequent actions and proceedings. It means targeting victims for their efforts at 1st Amendment expression and defending themselves in administrative and judicial proceedings. (continued in Part 2)

1 0

Re: Digital Postage (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 21:03:59 -0400 > From: Anonymous <anon(a)anon.efga.org> > Subject: Re: Digital Postage (fwd) > Jim Choate wrote: > >> No, there is only one system which provides anonymity. It's called ecash. > >> The other systems do not have the features we want. > > > >Yes, but it does not have a clear market advantage. In fact the > >anonymity issue may actualy work against it. > > We are not talking about an abstract "what will the market do" issue > here. We are talking about how to get a working payment system up for > remailers which gets us great service and provides privacy and > security. That is exactly what we are talking about, he who predicts what the market will do AND invests somebodies elses money will win big. That 'abstract' market motion is EXACTLY what the market will do in practice. In other words it's the service you will be buying because the people with the money think it will make them money off your willingness to spend your money. As I have said before, privacy and security are not issues in remailers. Being able to plausibly deny any involvement is, a subtle but important difference. > The rest of the world may or may not catch on to ecash, but if it's > going to start, it will start with a small group. I think it should > be this one. It will not start with a small group. Anonymous remailers are big traffic - big buck operations in the long run. The price per message must be in the milli-cent range which means the traffic must be in the mega-message range to make money; simple multiplication. > Businesses use multiple forms of payment all the time, even in the > United States where multiple currency use is legally discouraged. It isn't a question of which currency you use - that is NOT the same as the economic system in place. Businesses may use dollars or dinars but at the end of the day they put them in a bank which at least at times follows international agreements on banking. This is why we can transfer money from one denomination to another. > When I go to a restaurant I can pay in cash or use a variety of credit > cards. And credit cards cost the establishment a substantial amount > of money and headache, too. Yes, but that is not a different system. You are still taking money from your bank account (on loan from a bank if through a CC) and putting it in somebody elses bank account. The banks define our system of economics to a great degree. Banks don't like anonymous transactions so whatever system we put in place must buy the support of the traditional financial institutions at some point. How do you convince a bank that anonymous cash transactions are in their best interest? > I hope we are all assuming that The Enemy knows who is using > remailers, at least at the moment. If they do then the users aren't anonymous anymore and hence any 'security' or 'privacy' they may derive is one of delusion. > There's no hiding those telltale > PGP messages sent to a certain short list of suspected remailer > addresses. Some day we will have good steganography and it won't be > possible to tell who is using a remailer, but this is not the best > problem to solve right now. Stego won't be any harder to detect than a PGP encrypted message. > >Can do what? Anonymity cracking or create a payment system that > >allows for the intermediate parties to be paid but doesn't > >over-burden the user? The point is not to have the poor end user have > >to create a half- dozen payment arrangements to get chaining. It > >becomes a real hassle to do at that point. > > No it doesn't. Watch carefully: > > $remailer{'cyber'} = '<alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net> alpha pgp'; > $remailer{"mix"} = "<mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; > $remailer{"replay"} = "<remailer(a)replay.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; > $remailer{"jam"} = "<remailer(a)cypherpunks.ca> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek money25cents"; > $remailer{"winsock"} = "<winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net> cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord ?"; > $remailer{'nym'} = '<config(a)nym.alias.net> newnym pgp'; > $remailer{"squirrel"} = "<mix(a)squirrel.owl.de> cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash latent cut ek"; > $remailer{'weasel'} = '<config(a)weasel.owl.de> newnym pgp'; > $remailer{"reno"} = "<middleman(a)cyberpass.net> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; > $remailer{"cracker"} = "<remailer(a)anon.efga.org> cpunk mix remix pgp hash ksub esub latent cut ek money25cents reord post"; > $remailer{'redneck'} = '<config(a)anon.efga.org> newnym pgp'; > $remailer{"bureau42"} = "<remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org> cpunk mix pgp ksub hash latent cut ek"; > $remailer{"neva"} = "<remailer(a)neva.org> cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub ?"; > $remailer{"lcs"} = "<mix(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu> mix money25cents"; > $remailer{"medusa"} = "<medusa(a)weasel.owl.de> money25cents mix middle" > $remailer{"McCain"} = "<mccain(a)notatla.demon.co.uk> mix middle"; > $remailer{"valdeez"} = "<valdeez(a)juno.com> cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; > $remailer{"arrid"} = "<arrid(a)juno.com> cpunk pgp pgponly money25cents hash ek"; > $remailer{"hera"} = "<goddesshera(a)juno.com> cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; > $remailer{"htuttle"} = "<h_tuttle(a)rigel.cyberpass.net> cpunk pgp hash latent cut post ek"; I guarantee that neither your mother or mine will look twice at that gobbeldy-gook. Hell, I won't use it because I have to create such files every damn time I have to send a message. Too much work, too much room for errors. When you can arrange to chain remailers without the user having to touch the above you will have a winner. KISS > See if you can figure out which remailers accept money and how much > they accept. Now, in figuring that out, did you do anything that > would reveal your identity? Do you think a simple program could > handle the task? Actualy, yes I did do something to reveal my identity. I have to pass that entire list of chaining along to the first remailer who passes it along to the second minus the first entry and so on. If I can grab a single remailer in that chain I can back track because that remailer knows where that list came from. To really make chaining secure neither the user or the individual operators should have a say in it. > You might be. I'm interested in smart people who want to protect > their privacy. Then they won't use remailers at all. A smart person is not going to trust any 3rd party channel they don't have total control over. A smart person is not going to get involved in a conflict in the first place. The situation is sort of like the comparison between reasonable and un-reasonable men. Progress is caused by the un-reasonable man. If the commercial remailer is ever going to arise (which I doubt) it will be one of 'regular joe's' as users and must be about as complicated as getting a coke from a machine (which is a long way off currently). > >This is the silliest thing I think I have heard so far in this > >discussion.... > >...And my experience is that prices move up and people expect them to. > > Mind your manners. I am, that doesn't mean I can't call a spade a spade. I didn't say anything about you personaly, deal with it. > Then look around. For the last few hundred years just about > everything has been dropping in price. Really? I suggest you look at newspapers from say the mid-60's and compare them to now. Very few things will be anywhere close to where it was then in price, and the vast majority will not be lower. Bread went up, water went up, electricity went up, etc. > And, in the computer and > information industry in particular, prices drop like crazy all the > time for decades, even when you adjust for inflation. Buy memory > recently? No, prices don't drop the machines that used to cost the current price aren't made anymore. Any entry level machine costs about $1,000 just like it did 10 years ago. The difference is that you get a lot more hardware and a new os. Again, a minor but important distinction. Yes, I have bought memory recently - 64M as a matter of fact. The memory has dropped in price because the new machines don't take it anymore or else the motherboards with the new many-megs-required OS's won't work on 8M anymore. Theres no mystery other than obsolescence at play. Try buying one of the new 4G DRAM's.... > If you want to run a remailer and charge a fraction of a cent for each > message, or for an account, or whatever, please be my guest. I looked into it for several months about a year and a half ago. The result was the current economic, social, and legal environment simply aren't going to support such operations in the near future with anything like the indipendance that we would like. Hell, your the one offering $50 or somesuch for a commercial remailer. Take that $50 and set up your own site. Nothing like experience to teach a hard lesson. If you're right you should be making money in short order. > >The key to anonyous remailers is not the cost per message but rather > >the amount of traffic to be carried. Anonymous remailers are beasts > >of mass markets measured in millions of recipients. > > That is obviously untrue. Remailers are used by a small highly > specialized market of perhaps a few hundred people. Some day, if we > do good work, there will be millions of users. While remailers may be, commercial remailers still don't exist and are a completely different beast than some philanthropic enterprise. If you don't get the millions up front you won't be getting anyone. The other aspect you seem to ignore consistently is not the cost to submit the original message but the cost to send that message to the world, the real cost I might add. The purpose of commercial remailers (and I suspect all remailers) is to reach a mass market. If your market can't reach millions for pennies nobody will use it because you can't give them what they want. Whether its drugs, sex information, or political views the central party must reach a large group to succeed. > Can you think of any mass market which started out as a mass market? > I can't think of a single one. Once the pioneers worked out the technology: Cable television, music videos, automobiles, air transport, bicycles, telephones. > >But the system to post charges BETWEEN remailers must be pretty > >consistent to be acceptable. > > Untrue. You just have to know what each remailer charges. That's > about as hard as knowing what services it offers or that it exists. Only if you feel obliged to arrange payment between the remailers yourself, which provides a link between remailers and you further eroding your expectation of anonymity. The point, which you miss, is that the chaining remailers should know nothing of the original user which your system fails to do. > >That is the key and it has NOT been discussed too any great > >degree. That inter-remailer traffic must be anonymous also or else > >traffic analysis can back-track. > > I may be misreading this, but you do realize ecash is anonymous, > right? Nobody can tell who sent the money, just who received it. ecash is anonymous but it is not an accepted standard between remailers, let along commercial ones. Furthermore, under your system I as a user must contact each remailer and arrange payment to some account. So we know not only who received it but who sent it as well, otherwise how does the remailer know to take your payment and apply it to your account and not mine?. If we further accept your premise that mallet knows who is using those remailers then we are completely devoid of anonymity. > Perhaps you are arguing that The Enemy would notice that you withdrew > a bunch of coins and then make a guess that all those remailers making > deposits three minutes later are depositing your coins? That is > easily solved by generating the ASCII ecash certificates once a week > or so and then pasting them into your messages when you send them. I am arguing that under the current system the checks and balances are such that true anonymity can't be attained on a scale that is commercialy feasible. > >It seems to me that the remailers need some sort of anonymous payment > >server that is put in place for some other reason, that way they > >don't have to deal with the justification issue. > > What justification issue? Ecash is available right now. You don't > have to justify it to anybody, just use it. Really? How about explaining how I purchase a car or house anonymously with ecash? I can't. Also, you seem to have missed an important point. When we get a system where anon remailers can survive we will have created an anonymous money laundry, not something that a lot of people want or desire. > Hopefully, once the cypherpunks start using it regularly, it will > begin to catch on with people peripheral to the group, and then with > everyone. If this were true it would have already happend. The thousand or so people on this list might be involved in the technology and its application, I doubt that we will have any say in its eventual success. > >> You are confusing one cost of doing business with the price the market > >> will bear. > > > >How? > > You seem to think that because the cost of transporting mail is > inexpensive, the price for protecting somebody's identity can't be > high. First, you don't know what I think - ask questions don't make assumptions (speaking of manners). Please keep your ad hominims at home. What I am saying is that because the cost of individual mail is low I as a commercial business trying to make a living off each of those emails can't expect a lot from them, therefore I need a lot of them. > >What I am saying is that physical mail and the system developed for > >dealing with it went hand-in-hand. The design and advancement of the > >Internet technology is not driven by email or it's technology. That > >perhaps because of this difference perhaps we need to look at models > >other than the postage one. It in fact may be coloring our perception > >and a look at alternative models might help. > > The only models that have been proposed so far require a lot of work > and evangelism. Ecash doesn't require much work, and it will be > easier to evangelize. ecash is not what I am talking about here. Which by the way will take a lot of work to get people to use it as ubiquitously as needed by a commercial remailer. I am talking about the entire infrastructure that will be required to support commercial remailers. What will be required is not clear to anyone involved in the issues. I furthermore don't have any interest in religion (re evangalism) but rather in running a business and making money. I don't want to change your mind, I want you to spend your money with me (as an anon remailer operator) with the security that no matter what you submit it can't be traced back to you. Even your much vaunted ecash can't do that yet. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

InfoWar 23 (Part III of 'The True Story of the InterNet')
by Bubba Sho'nuff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0