Remailer Phases and Joseph Ashwood's criminal behavior

[Joseph Ashwood]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Subcommander Bob" <bob at black.org>
Subject: CDR: Remailer Phases and Joseph Ashwood's criminal behavior


> At 03:16 PM 8/8/01 -0500, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
> >> Who of the current remops do you trust? Why?
> >
> >I don't trust any of them. I don't personally use remailers, I don't
> tend to
> >do things that are illegal, but if I did there are other methods that
> I'd
> >use.
> >                    Joe
>
> Joe, only a dipshit thinks anonymity (or confidentiality) is for
> criminals[1].

There you go confusing things again, I really wish you'd get that fixed.
Anonymity is strictly for the purpose of doing something that would
otherwise be troublesome. Perhaps you are confusing anonymity with
pseudonymity? Confidentiality is another matter entirely, and strictly
seperate from anonymity or pseudonymity. I think once you deal with your
confusion (which I understand, you are most likely a product of the american
school system which for quite some time confused me also) you will see
things much more reasonably.

>
> You don't always give your personal info out every time you speak in
> public, right?

And do you always wear a black plastic tarp that's inflated to the size of a
small car to hide your identity in public?
You are failing to grasp the difference between anonymity and not forcibly
revealing information.

> You use envelopes, not postcards, right?

And you put your return address either on the envelope or in the letter
don't you? You seem to be having a very hard time grasping the difference
between functional anonymity and forced anonymity, let alone the often more
difficult to grasp pseudonymity versus anonymity. Let me give you an
example. If you go outside right now and walk down the street, you will
likely pass a person. Do you care who that person is? Do you know that
person? Does the person care who you are? Does the person know you? If the
answer is no, then the two of you have functional anonymity.

>
> [1] stick with payphones and letters for your ransom notes and death
> threats, Joe,
> you'll find computers too complicated.

I see the less intelligent are crawling out of the woodwork on this one
(I've got a few more in my inbox). I said I don't use anonymous remailers,
that is far different from not making use of anonymity (which I occasionally
do require), or pseudonymity which I quite often use. There seems to be a
significant number of people that have little to no grasp of the differences
between anonymity, functional anonymity, and pseudonymity. Anonymity is
where no matter how hard the attacker works they cannot find out who sent
(or in some cases received) the message, this level of anonymity is simply
not available through remailers (see my message where I dictated the
collusion to break the entire remailer network). Functional anonymity is
much more possible, that's where it will take more work than the attacker is
willing to put in, this level is attainable and is probably available from
various sources. Pseudonymity is what most people really want when they say
anonymity, that's where the attacker will not/is unable to expend the work
effort to find out who actually sent the message, but any future messages
sent can be linked, hushmail is quite often used in this way. I think once
people get these straight the level of uninformedness on the subject will
very quickly lower itself.
                        Joe