tmp@netcom.com writes/asks:
yes, remailers solve the problem of trying to post messages without identity, but are we sure this is a `problem' we want to `solve'?
If this problem is not solved then all posts must contain a reference to the poster's true identity. Is that what you want, tmp@netcom.com? How would it be enforced? Government approved public-key pairs issued at birth? Random identity checkpoints on the Infobahn? A ban on all un-approved cryptography? Peer pressure?
hal argues below that there is `no line dividing the clean from the unclean' (real name vs. pseudonymous vs. anonymous etc.). to the contrary it seems to me to be the case that either `i know who you are' or i don't. what does it mean for me to `know who you are'? i admit there is no basic definition, but it does seem to me that should not prevent us from trying to find one.
Instead of asking "who are you?", ask "what are you like?". I don't usually need to know who you are, but in certain contexts it is important to know what you are like. Further, I don't need to know what you are like in all contexts. Identity-based systems approach the "what are you like" question by demanding to know "who you are", and then determining "what you are like" by accessing various and sundry databases. These various and sundry databases are rapidly condensing into a few logical mega-databases. The problem with identity-based systems in which everyone has only a single identity is that it soon becomes very easy for someone to learn more about you than is necessary or desirable. Cross-referencing is the root of all evil! :-) I think much of the technology advocated on this mailing list can enable people to answer the important "what are you like" questions without creating systems that can also be used to pry into your entire life history.
the important goal is `defining what privacy really means'
I agree it is an important goal.
and cypherpunks seem to take the position, `it means that nobody knows anything about me'.
I disagree. I think cypherpunks want to retain (or re-acquire) the ability to control who knows what about them and when and under what contexts. This is a bit different from "nobody knows anything about me". However, I can't speak for all cypherpunks.
our society simply cannot function under this constraint.
If by "our society" you mean the society in which we currently live, I'd have to agree. That does *not* mean I believe all possible societies become impossible under this constraint. Actually, I believe "under this constraint" is a strawman (see previous paragraph).
if you continue to insist that `nobody should know who i am' i fear you will be bypassed by more sophisticated [?] groups that have a less polarized view of issues of identity and privacy. and it will ultimately be the least controversial proposals that will shape the future we live in.
Being a pessimist, I'll have to agree with you here, although for slightly different reasons. I believe that as long as there are income and property taxes, the government will find ways to justify prying into our personal lives. Jim_Miller@suite.com