<Part of Tim May's post>
the above is almost exactly what Dyson was saying, and I have been
No, Dyson said "Therefore I would favor allowing anonymity -- with some form of traceability only under terms considerably stronger than what are generally required for a wiretap." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I wonder what Dyson would consider acceptable? Regardless, she is not going to get it. EBD
This implies a role for government, and concomitant restrictions on related anonymity technologies, to provide traceability. So much for mutual agreement between sender and recipient.
(I have nothing against senders and recipients agreeing to use the services of some third party in providing ultimate traceability. I'm not wild about the U.S. Government being this third party, paid for by tax money, but so long as it is not required, it's a minor concern to me. I surmise, though, that use of the U.S. Government as a third party would not be optional, in the schemes of Dyson, Denning, and others of that ilk.)
--Tim May
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- 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: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."