At 7:51 PM -0700 on 10/27/00, Tim May wrote:
But then you are tilting at windmills, as no one who is reputable has made such a claim, that anonymity will always cost more than non-anonymity.
Actually, Wei Dei, and others of reputation, used to say it here quite frequently... And, no, I don't think I tilt at windmills anymore than than the average cypherpunk. Finally, I think we're both saying the same thing, and you're the one arguing the rather distinctionless difference. viz, At 10:38 PM -0400 10/27/00, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
So, to put it another way, when privacy is *cheaper*, on a risk adjusted basis, than we'll have privacy, and not much until then.
I expect most of us would agree to that, if they thought about it enough.
The "risk adjusted" bit is, of course, the most important one, as noted quite comprehensively, in the above response to a fairly simple, albeit catchy, observation.
...which you seem to have conveniently ignored seemingly to perpetuate the discussion, versus At 7:51 PM -0700 10/27/00, Tim May wrote:
As with the lock example, a lock almost always costs more than no lock. But the costs of having no lock may be much higher.
The cost of anything is the foregone alternative? Nawwwwww... Cheers, RAH -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'