CDR: Re: Hard Shelled ISP?

[R. A. Hettinga]

At 7:51 PM -0700 on 10/27/00, Tim May wrote:


> But then you are tilting at windmills, as no one who is reputable has
> made such a claim, that anonymity will always cost more than
> non-anonymity.

Actually, Wei Dei, and others of reputation, used to say it here quite
frequently...

And, no, I don't think I tilt at windmills anymore than than the average
cypherpunk.

Finally, I think we're both saying the same thing, and you're the one
arguing the rather distinctionless difference.

viz,

At 10:38 PM -0400 10/27/00, 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.
>
> I expect most of us would agree to that, if they thought about it enough.
>
> The "risk adjusted" bit is, of course, the most important one, as noted
> quite comprehensively, in the above response to a fairly simple, albeit
> catchy, observation.

...which you seem to have conveniently ignored seemingly to perpetuate the
discussion, versus

At 7:51 PM -0700 10/27/00, Tim May wrote:
> As with the lock example, a lock almost always costs more than no
> lock. But the costs of having no lock may be much higher.


The cost of anything is the foregone alternative? Nawwwwww...

Cheers,
RAH
-- 
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'