From: miron@extropia.wimsey.com (Miron Cuperman)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 04:11:08 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: How far is to far?
In-Reply-To: <199211200828.AA03551@well.sf.ca.us>
Message-ID: <1992Nov20.111126.1376@extropia.wimsey.bc.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


gg@well.sf.ca.us (George A. Gleason) writes:

>Re. Fen's proposal to utilise "broadcatch."  We still have the problems of
>slander/libel and breaches of legitimate secrecy.  

>At risk of sounding naive/idealistic, it would seem that since there is no
>way to block information passing through the net (aside from screening at
>source, impractical at least!), the solution rests with education of the
>net-using population.  Power carries responsibility in equal measure.  We

Nah, education is too hard. :)

There are two other options:

- Have the mix accessible to only a selected group.  Provide the group
with signed certificates.  It is possible to sign certificates such
that they are untracable to their owner, exactly like crypto money.
A security concern here is that the mix owner can tell when the
same user uses the mix more than once (but the owner can't tell
which user).

- Charge for the mix services with crypto-money.  The crypto-money
could be some networking service.  It could be even mix transmission.
For example, the basic currency could be the transmission of 10K
through a mix.  One would have to create a mix and let the bank
route some traffic through it thereby putting credits in your
account.  Once you have credits, you could spend them anywhere.
One might want to fiddle with the definition of the currency so
that it does not depreciate with time.

I prefer the second option.  I think mixes and crypto-money really
go hand in hand.
-- 
	Miron Cuperman <miron@extropia.wimsey.com>   | NeXTmail/mime ok
		       <miron@cs.sfu.ca>	     | Public key avail
	AMIX: MCuperman				     |
immortalcybercomputinglaissezfaire		     |