Why Joseph Asherwood Should Use Remailers

[Joseph Ashwood]

Yet another failure on the part of the reader. Anonymity is strictly to
avoid having something linked to your identity. Since what I do requires
trust, and trust cannot be built into an anonymous system. I can't do what I
want to do through anonymity.

Additionally you have apparently failed to grasp exactly where the reality
and perceived reality of anonymous remailers actually lies. What you have
taken to calling anonymity is far from it. Not only does it have a threshold
of workeffort that can be applied to trace a message, but it also comes from
a finite set of users, a potentially very small finite set of users.

For example, how many people make use of remailer.xganon.com? Certainly no
more than a few thousand. A few thousand investigations would turn of any
facts surrounding statements made through the "anonymous" remailer. To
narrow the possibilities even further, how many of them read cypherpunks
through lne.com?

Whether you have realized it or not, your anonymity is heavily flawed. So
what point is there to using "anonymity" that is heavily flawed, slow, drops
messages, and through not being pseudonymous does not allow the building of
trust? The only remaining reason would be doing something illegal where the
flaws become benefits, slowness is immaterial, dropped messages don't
matter, and you don't want trust. If you can give me an example of another
use of a generally horrible technology that is legal I will gladly point out
to you why there are still better technologies for that as well.
                                Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anonymous" <remailer at remailer.xganon.com>
To: <cypherpunks at lne.com>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 2:19 PM
Subject: CDR: Why Joseph Asherwood Should Use Remailers


> Joseph Asherwood wrote:
> > 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.
>
> You strike me as a fast learner, so I believe in a short time you will
> see that this is a silly statement.  There's nothing wrong with
> learning, but this error is now linked to you forever.
>
>