On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 12:47:27AM +0100, edo wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, true anonymity in finacial affairs (and secure communication channels) is the only real method open to peacefully combat the all seeing [etc.]
We have anonymity in Web browsing (more or less, thanks to Lance & co). It's not NSA-proof, but it's probably subpoena-proof. We have anonymity in email thanks to remailers (to the extent they're still around). We have anonymity in publishing, and to some extent, document retrieval, thanks to Freenet. We have anonymity in one-way communications/dead drops thanks to remailers gatewayed to Usenet newsgroups (if any still even do that). We do not have anonymity in financial transactions. In fact, we have less anonymity than we did a decade ago, thanks to amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act and the USA Patriot Act. And the OECD's efforts in this area too. Instead of a Chaum or Brands payment system, we ended up with ebay/Paypal -- which has made clear its policy of intimate cooperation with police. Strong anonymity in online financial transactions is something like a linchpin in deploying better strong anonymity solutions in other areas because people like to get paid for developing and maintaining such systems, especially if they are in any way controversial. The problem IMHO is obtaining an interface with the banking/financial system, probably the most-regulated industry in the U.S. -Declan