-- At 10:38 PM 10/27/2000 -0400, 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.
Transactions on the internet need reputational enforcement. Most of us cannot afford the cost and effort required to generate a widely known reputation. So we rent the reputation of a widely known entity, usually Visa or Paypal. If that entity is implementing chargebacks, implementing a dispute arbitration service, as Visa has long done, and Paypal now does, then it must know us, and know everything about us. That entity, being large, is vulnerable to the state, and so what it knows, the state knows. Anonymous transactions must be transactions that do not require, and are not charged for, an arbitration service applying chargebacks. Such a service is inherently cheaper than the true name based service provided by Paypal and Visa. Internet shopping and internet auctions such as Ebay tend to require an arbitration service and chargebacks. However many regular Ebay sellers have established a good name, and could successfully operate, and would prefer to operate, with a system that does not provide for chargebacks. Similarly micropayments do not need a facility for arbitration and chargebacks, and could not afford the cost of such a facility. Any entity that facilitates transactions tends to be the deep pockets party that gets dragged into every quarrel, and thus is forced to implement a chargeback and arbitration policy regardless of whether it or its customers want such a service, regardless of whether they desire to pay for such a service. An entity that provides truly anonymous transactions has the great strength that its no chargebacks policy is credible, that it cannot be dragged into the arbitration business against its desires and the desires of its customers. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG OLA7vdEb/UfbsQMrSWYy8AHmV/2UITEt32g9J6IG 486m1oVWEs2lm3apL5uK4JYB2UFyZDKJmZrDM0+8f