The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[mean-green at hushmail.com]

At 10:46 AM 8/26/2001 -0700, Tim May <tcmay at got.net> wrote:
>On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 09:13 AM, mean-green at hushmail.com wrote:

>> Right on target.  There is one aspect to this loss of nerve not 
>> mentioned: the correlation between those with the means and interest to 
>>pursue these avenues and those with merely the interest.
>
>There are a couple of points to make on this issue:
>
>First, the "correlation of interests" situation is a well-solved 
problem. Those with the financial means (and maybe some 
political/technical interest) set up a company and hire those with the 
technical abilities and interest. The company may be self-funded by the 
founders, or outside investors may be sought.
>
>However, this is not so easy to do when it comes to these technologies. 
ZKS did it and raised, we hear, something like $60 million. Quite a 
warchest for untraceability tools. ZKS has been much-discussed here.
>
>There are some major obstacles with such a public company:
>
>1. Patents and IP in general. Doing digital cash without using Chaum's 
blinding patent may be tough. (Some of the "agnostic" approaches 
discussed here may work, technically, but will probably still be 
litigated. A public company is a public target. The current owners of 
the Chaum patent, a Canadian company IIRC, will not look dispassionately 
on other companies doing an end-run.)
>
>2. A public company or traceable group of developers will become 
targets. The attacks could be just simple legal ones, but could range up 
to RICO and beyond. "Pedophile-grade untraceability" is powerful stuff. 
How long before Mojo faces lawsuits analogous to what Napster faced?

Very unlikely unless it raises to challenge the current crop of Napster replacements.

>
>(Napster is a good example of this. Utter traceability, of both music 
traders and the company itself. Those who downloaded or uploaded music 
got nastygrams and threats of civil action, and the company itself was 
sued and now faces extinction. It may be that anyone developing such 
tools should just give up on the idea of becoming a dot com tycoon and 
instead release products untraceably...perhaps benefitting in other 
ways.)
>
>> One of this list's members shopped here and elsewhere a few years back 
>> for participation in building a DBC-based payment and value system.  He 
>> had assembled a team with the banking experience, needing the 
>> technology implementors.  None were willing to put their talents to the 
>> test.  They all nodded regarding the need for such a facility but none 
<> would expend any efforts.
>
>If you are talking about Bob Hettinga, there are many things one could 
say about his schemes and plans.

Actually, I was referring to Steve Schear.  He worked at Citicorp for some time and attracted a number of former mid and senior VISA people, one help found Sonnet Financial an online foreign exchange service, to work for First eCache.

>I'm more impressed with what another person is actually doing: Orlin 
Grabbe. Do some Web searches. Orlin has good banking credentials himself 
(Wharton, coined the term "regulatory arbitrage"), good libertarian 
credentials (a powerful newsletter for many years), some technical 
abilities (writes code), has been willing to move to places like Costa 
Rica, and, most importantly, he UNDERSTANDS the "sweet spot" argument.

Steve has also argued these points.

>Bob H., in my opinion, got too fixated on coining new acronyms and in 
flitting around to various lists and focussed in on the wrong end of the 
cost/benefit continuum. He kept claiming the DBC or E$bux or whatever 
would be cheaper to use than real money.

>Anyway, it is not easy to create a public company, a public nexus of 
attack, and then deploy systems which target that high-value sweet spot. 
The real bankers and the regulators won't allow such things into the 
official banking system. (Why do people think the banking system will 
embrace "digital bearer bonds" having untraceability features when true 
bearer bonds were eliminated years ago?)

I believe First eCache intended to be compliant with know your customer regs, depending upon independent market makers and money changers to provide the necessary indirection for unlinkability.  If so it would difficult for the banking system to easily exclude them.  In the same down.way the regulators have had a very difficult time bringing the Black Market Peso Exchange down.


Free, secure Web-based email, now OpenPGP compliant - www.hushmail.com