At 4:00 PM -0700 6/4/97, Alan wrote:
Quoting Ray Everett-Church:
As stated before, I have heard no convincing argument that it is in the consumers best interest to have an anonymous *vendor*. Sure it's vital that *consumers* be allowed to remain anonymous, but if you're selling a product or service, there's no legitimate reason why a business needs to remain anonymous given issues of warranties, product liability, sales taxes, etc.
I can think of a number of reasons why a business would want to remain "hidden". Fear of retribution is the biggest. This could be "valid" retribution (such as for selling shoddy products or annoying sales practices) or "invalid" retribution (such as selling a product that offends the local moral or legal establishment), but is a product that people desire and are willing to pay money for.
But such markets are "illegal" and thus not to be thought about by good little citizen units.
I must've missed the original on this...haven't seen a post from Ray Everett-Church (one of those highfalutin' hyphenated names!) in a long time. It turns out that I had this precise discussion with Chaum just before our panel discussion at CFP; Michael Froomkin was also there and agreed with my points (he can clarify this if he wishes). Namely, Chaum argue that seller anonymity was not needed, except for illegal markets, which he claimed he would not support. Well, I immediately pointed out, what about providers of, say, birth control information in jurisdictions where such information is illegal? (Not all such information is free, and any metered access system that was not seller anonymous would be a prime candidate for stings by government agents). I also pointed out other markets for other kinds of information, which at various times and places have been illegal. Sometimes retroactively so. Chaum said he had to agree that these were good examples, and that he'd think about the issue furhter. He speculated during his panel presentation that possibly a mechanism could be found to allow such vendor or seller anonymity for _educational_ and similar materials, but not for other things...Froomkin and I were incredulous. The fact is that seller and buyer anonymity are equally important. Every transaction has two parts, and it is a logical fallacy to assume that only buyers wish untraceability. It may be true that in the _conventional model_ of retail shops selling to walk-in customers, the ontological reality is that the shops are far from anonymous while the customers are often anonymous, but this model is not the only model of an agoric marketplace. Sellers of information on the Net are quite likely to be serious customers of anonymity...look at the use of pseudonyms in general in literature. And so on. The archives have several threads on this subject. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."