Eli Brandt <eli@UX3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> writes:
If you split the message into shadows, you avoid having anyone in this position.
Hal Finney <hfinney@shell.portal.com> responds:
...If the end user is responsible for reassembly, then that is tantamount to voluntarily agreeing to receive anonymous messages, and that is no problem... ...And of course anonymous news postings via shadows would also have the reassembly problem.
It seems that there could at least be a hierarchy of shadowed newsgroups, e.g. alt.freespeech.*, requiring the enduser to use special software to reassemble actual postings. This could even be integrated into the newsreaders, or even at a local newserver level. To post to these groups, something like the current Mixmaster remailer network might be used, with extensions for posting "shadows" to these newsgroups. So posting would require slightly more enduser sophistication,and the ability to encrypt. The client posting software would hit ITAR, but presumably not the client reassembly software (newsreader extensions, etc.), since it doesn't need the ability to encrypt. Then the newsgroup hierarchy itself would become the target of control fervor. Perhaps this could be fought with an emphasis on freedom of speech and creation of newsgroups for "political expression", e.g. alt.freespeech.talk.politics, etc. It's unfortunate, but good soundbites can be as important as good protocols: "Freedom of Speech in Cyberspace: Feds want to eliminate so-called "freespeech newsgroups" on the new information superhighway..." I haven't done my homework on protocols for distributing shadows. Are there problems with this, other than the obvious one of actually doing all the work? Doug Cutrell _____________________________________________________________ Doug Cutrell General Partner doug@cdsnet.net Open Mind =============================================================