-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote:
At a very basic level, anonymous (not pseudonymous, like the remailers are) messages are *cheaper*, because they carry less information; they do not need to send the bits which identify the sender.
I think the meaning of "anonymous" here is clearly with respect to _traffic analysis_. The "cost of anonymity" is with respect to the costs and delays of using digital mixes (remailers)).
I don't think it's useful to redefine "anonymous" to include some messages which identify the author, and to exclude some messages which do not identify the author. Then again, I'm not sure it's useful to play Language Cop, either. But count mine as a voice in favor of describing accurately what's being discussed. (Perhaps messages which defy traffic analysis might be called "untraceable" but not "anonymous", unless they also do not identify an author.)
Anonymous video conferencing is available now; go to Kinko's, pay cash for the use of their video conference room. Or, ask/convince the recipient to consider the conversation "off the record".
Neither of these kinds of "anonymity" are cryptographically interesting, or strong.
I agree. I fear I've been influenced by some of the authors on that Cypher[something] list who've recently argued persausively in favor of applying technology appropriate to local conditions; e.g., not wasting time on the techno-gadget-of-the-month when more pedestrian but functional means are available. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLxA7I33YhjZY3fMNAQGIQAQAqzEU6ru3/9/ScfHCZ6DnVK8bDewPVrg2 LAAZpVWuxfAW0W1oJ7NSXxrMmrIEX7MJetrpzlb+D5A1JuOVdtJ8gUwMxCRIMOeI LU78Q/MuSp1oWbPEARDJ6JLZztU3Zs0bQH13kTY1tSZaZlQWj/cmWKUrmis4ZRkE +px7kuMB8lg= =Ty1L -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----