Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages.

[Jim Choate]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> 
> >But the only place they can trace messages in a 'small world' model is at
> >source/destination link, which means they're already on top of you. If
> >they're out fishing all they'd see is a bunch of packets sent between
> >remailers with the body encrypted several layers deep with keys held by a
> >variety of people.
> 
> the point is, that's enough.

No, it's not.

> Both endpoints on such a packet's route are participants, obviously.

Given. So are all the remailers in between.

> If they want to shut it  down, and they have seen such a packet, they have 
> two people they can shut down. 

No they don't. They have at most the sender or the receiver (never both
unless they've already cracked both of them in which case this entire
exercise is moot).

How do you shut a program down that is running independently in a
distributed process space? A process space that is distributed in such a
way that the hardware that executes a particular image of the remailer for
one message is NOT the same hardware that would be used for the next
message. In fact neither the owner of the process or the owner of the
individual boxes necessarily have a say in the selection process. The only 
way to take that down is take 'em all down at once. Not possible.

Can the US government shut the entire Internet down? No. Can they shut
down just the US based infra-structure in toto? No.

> Repeat ad nauseam, and the infrastructure is destroyed.

Not hardly. You really, really should read more 9P documentation.

http://plan9.bell-labs.com

> They don't have to trace individual messages if they can make the software 
> illegal. 

Fortunately encryption software enjoys enough of a 1st amendment shield
that isn't going to happen. A moot point.

> And in an agent provocateur mode, the software is illegal the 
> minute they want it to be -- all they have to do is show a 
> DMCA violation (which they can manufacture at will) and declare 
> the software illegal as a "circumvention device".

Not hardly. Sending an encrypted message to a friend across the country
is not a 'circumvention device' because we aren't doing anything related
to copyrighted material. An anonymous remailer is not a 'circumvention
device' within the context of DMCA.

Hell, if they could manufacture it at will they already would have.

> >With Plan 9 that would require them to outlaw using a particular OS. Maybe
> >in a lot of places, but not in the US.
> 
> Really?  I guarantee you that if a particular OS gets in the way 
> of those with power, they can declare it a "circumvention device" 
> the same as any other software.  

Not hardly. But I'll gladly look at a more fleshed out scenario when you
provide it...

> Bingo.  That is absolutely the point.  The current paradigm being 
> the Internet as we know it.

Which Plan 9 and 'small world' networks ain't.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

                Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night:
                God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light.

                                          B.A. Behrend

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------