Eternity Uncensorable?

Mark Grant mark at
Wed Aug 6 07:19:55 PDT 1997

On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Adam Back wrote:

>   However this is going on other peoples information.  I don't have
>   any figures for how widespread the practice of configuring news to
>   ignore cancels is.  

Ditto. We'd have to assume that it's pretty widespread to avoid these 
> To do it properly, you'll need a local eternity server if you want to
> good security of encrypted documents. 

I'd assume that in the end this is what most people would do; get a Usenet
feed and run a server locally so that noone knows which URLs you're

> Turn of logs, and introduce forward secrecy into mixmaster.  Easy to
> do.  Why don't we have it yet?  (Ulf?  Lance?)
> Then you have as true security as you can get from a digital mix with
> the parameters mixmaster has.

That's not what I meant; I'm assuming that the mixmaster chain is pretty
secure. The problem is that when the government find 'nuclear terrorist
money-laundering kiddie drug porn' on the Eternity server they can trace
it back to the original Usenet message and then go after the remailer
operator who posted it. Making the remailers disposable or setting them up
in free countries would work, but I'd prefer a technical solution. 


More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list