"Anonymity is bad," says a source who wishes to remain anonymous

[jim bell]

At 07:27 PM 5/31/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:

>In both cases--and these were not the first such cases I've seen--a source
>"who wishes to remain anonymous" is announcing just how bad and dangerous
>crypto, anonymity, remailers and stuff like that are.
>
>"But the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, insisted that any
>computer system that did not include a way for authorities to decipher data
>would 'pose very costly and time-consuming problems' for law enforcement
>officials."

But Tim, you know he is absolutely and literally correct!  It will, indeed, 
cause SERIOUS problems for those law-enforcement officials.  It'll put'em 
out of a job, at the very least.  Termination.  Possibly with extreme prejudice.

Seriously, however, for once I'd like to see some reporter pursue this kind 
of allegation with the person they're talking to.  He should ask, "what 
percentage of existing crime could be accomplished more effectively with 
good encryption that the cops can't break."  The truthful answer is, "not 
too damn much!"  

It seems to me that official-types must be thinking overtime about this kind 
of thing, because we're getting so much out of them along these lines.  
They're scared, for sure.


Jim Bell
jimbell at pacifier.com