-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 03:40 AM 9/2/2001 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote: Tim May wrote:

On Saturday, September 1, 2001, at 01:30 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

...

Yes and no. The users aren't all that anonymous, or they wouldn't need anonymous technologies, would they? The remailer network sees where this message originates. If you use Zero Knowledge software, their network knows exactly who is using it at any time. If a digital cash bank came into existence, payments transferred into the digital system from outside would largely be from identified sources.

What can I say? You clearly don't understand:

-- how remailer _networks_ work (Hint: nested encryption...all the first remailer sees when he opens a message is an encrypted message he can't read and instructions on which remailer to send it to next, and so on. Only if most/all remailers collaborate can the route be followed by them.)

The fact that a given person is using the remailer network is not a secret. At least one remailer finds out every time he sends a message. The point is, the entry from the non-anonymous to the anonymous world is a vulnerability.

If the number of remailers of small then this represents a vulnerability. If the number is large (and especially if the first remailer link is encrypted and is a generalized P2P client able to perform a great number of functions, including remailing) then risk is greatly reduced.

-- how Freedom works (Hint: They say that even they cannot know who is using it, except in terms of network usage. Which with cover traffic, forwarding of other traffic, dummy messages, etc., means the fact that Alice was using the network during a period of time does not mean they know which exit messages are hers.)

You are not stating their claims accurately. ZKS does indeed have information about who is using it at any given time, if they operate any of the servers. Or at least the server operators can tell. Each user sets up a route through a chain of servers, and any given server knows exactly who is using it as the initial connection into the network. Again, the entry from non-anonymous into anonymous networks is visible.

The hierarchical architecture of ZKS' network is, in my opinion, a weakness. I greatly prefer a P2P approach, despite possible DoS shortcomings. In a P2P approach the first remailer may be hosted on your own machine. As Tim has noted as long as one or a few remailers are trusted (and one assumes you own PC is trusted) then the chain is sufficiently reliable.

-- blinding. (Hint: That Alice deposits money into a digital bank, and is identified by the bank, does not mean the bank knows who received digital money from Alice, because Alice unblinds the note before spending it--or redeeming it.)

No, but the fact that Alice transfered a certain amount of funds into the anonymous bank is visible to at least some observers. Once again, the point is that as you enter the anonymous world your entry is visible.

As in the remailer case, if the number of ecash merchants is small and they don't accept cash then this may be true. If the number of sales and redemption points is large and cash, or other anonymous bearer instruments, are accepted then the risk is greatly reduced.

...

Nonsense. Most participants in this forum DO share common philosophical goals: the preservation and enhancement of individual freedom via technological means. This is our common heritage. People make moral judgements every single day on this list based on exactly this framework. And it is this moral view which tells us that bin Laden and his terrorist groups are not the market which we should target in order to advance these goals.

How about McVeigh? How about The Real IRA? How about John Brown? How about Patrick Henry/ How about Cuban exiles? (By the way, everyone should know about the time an anti-Castro group blew up a Cuban airliner. Terrorists, freedom fighters, or just a bunch who wants to be in control?)

Not everyone will agree with every specific case. But given our common philosophical heritage, list members can come to agreement with regard to most examples. The test is simple, whether these individuals advance the causes we support.

As long as you're listing examples, what do you think about Osama bin Laden? Would you support efforts to market crypto technology to Islamic religious extremists?

The great thing about bin Laden as an example is that we can see exactly what the consequences will be when he succeeds. With McVeigh, nobody knows for sure. But chances are it would be much the same if

If it can't pass the terrorist or pedo test its not ready for prime time. Would you limit firearm ownership to pellet guns. Would you trust or wish to pay for a missile defense system which would only defend against amateur rockets? the militias achieved their goals: installation of a religious state. Supporting these people means helping bring about another Afghanistan, maybe right here at home next time. And we can guess what happens when what we thought were our constitutional guarantees are slowly eroded "for our security and the safety of the Children." I have no interest in living in a "safe" society virtually devoid of my civil rights and woe onto those who enact leglislation or enforce laws taking it from you or I. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Hush 2.0 wmAEARECACAFAjuRtHIZHGtleXNlci1zb3plQGh1c2htYWlsLmNvbQAKCRAg4ui5IoBV n0GtAKClCvpYr35qjFjsgWHASTip7P79bQCfbHSthkT76QyYLPZsm5PZHg/eZUo= =03a3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----