From: Sandy <72114.1712@CompuServe.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 23:07:40 PDT
To: <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: ANNONYMOUS BANK ACCOUNTS
Message-ID: <931020053601_72114.1712_FHF42-1@CompuServe.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  SANDY SANDFORT               Reply to:  ssandfort@attmail.com
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Punksters,

Robert J. Woodhead suggested:

    . . . Rather than aspire to join the alleged clique of
    rich and powerful tax evaders, might it not be better to
    aspire to develop techniques that both maintain privacy
    but guarantee that they have to pay their share of the
    load. . . .

Oh Robert, the clique is hardly alleged.  Their there whether you
like the idea or not.  Strong crypto can do far more than merely
maintain privacy while we try--in vain--to fairly share the load.
It can help us *reduce and ultimately eliminate* the load for
rich and poor alike.  If you want to submit to taxes to buy
piece, go right ahead.  I'll put my faith in crypto anarchy.

Mr. Woodhead went on in another post:

    . . . the difference is that today, it's much harder to
    be discreet -- the encryption is a red flag.  "What's he
    hiding?" And as any intelligence analyst can tell you,
    even traffic analysis can tell you a _lot_. . . .

Nope, where message volume is high, encryption is lost in the
noise.  When encryption is wide-spread, it's not a read flag.  If
steganography is used, there is no flag at all.  Remailers make
traffic analysis extremely difficult or impossible.  Finally, the
traditional methods are still just as effective as always.

I'll say it again:  We have already won.

 S a n d y

>>>>>>    Please send e-mail to:  ssandfort@attmail.com    <<<<<<
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~