I just sent this to the remailer operators' list, but it may be of interest here too. I think Tim or Lucky or someone suggested something like GAI (Government Access to Identities) here a while back.... Forwarded message:
Lance writes:
Is it just me, or does this guy make a convincing case for the need for remailers without ever showing one shred of evidence to back up his fear mongering?
Exactly. Ted Byfield mentioned on cpunks that it reads like a free association session. I find the piece quite schizophrenic. (IANA psychologist :) They alternate between fairly eloquent arguments for the roots of remailers in fundamental principles of freedom and privacy, and the bizarre "anonymity as a disease" analogy.
I hypothesize that the Strassmann & Marlow paper is meant to lay the groundwork for some sort of eventual Government Access to Identities proposal (which would more likely be termed "identity escrow" by the Feds). It's about the only way I can reconcile statements like the following (juxtaposed by me, not them):
"...it becomes politically unacceptable to suppress remailers as potential sources of criminal acts. Such absolute prohibitions would never pass through a legislative process...."
"As in the case of [various diseases] it will take disasters before the public may accept that some forms of restrictions on the electronic freedom of speech and privacy may be worthwhile."
"We trust that this will be seen as a useful contribution to an already raging debate of how to find a balance between the desirable and the dangerous."
I suspect the key phrases there are "absolute prohibitions", "some forms of restrictions", and "find a balance".
I'm still surprised that the paper takes such a conciliatory stance towards anonymity and pseudonymity. Strong crypto and GAK-free crypto have big corporate constituencies, but I see strong and GAI-free anonymity/pseudonymity as much more vulnerable. I'm tempted to declare this a guarded preliminary success of the cpunks remailer community -- we are seen as a viable player in "the game", potentially capable of forcing at least a compromise on nymity issues.
-Lewis