From: Linn Stanton <lstanton@sten.lehman.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 11:06:10 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Cash, cheaters, and anonymity
In-Reply-To: <199408261733.KAA23541@netcom8.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9408261807.AA24706@sten.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) writes:
  > So the purist stance is untenable? Less than 2 years ago I was a
  > homeless person, living on the banks of the San Lorenzo River. Then I
  > met a person named "Timothy C. May." He wasn't interested in being on
  > the Net anymore--he said it took too much of his time--so he game me
  > his account, his password (which I've since changed, of course), and
  > said "Have fun." 
  > 
  > The purist stance is much more common than many might think.

I don't think this is really the purist stance. You defined it as 'you are
your key', and my view is that revocation will have to be possible. All
that your argument above is saying is 'email address and claimed name are
insufficient to prove identity' -- surely no one disputes that?

  > There are plenty of items of property that can be stolen, and are
  > stolen. And yet these items continue to exist, be sold, traded, etc.

Yes. And physical possession of them is not generally considered to be
unquestionable legal proof that you are the person who originally
owned them.

  > If someone is really, really worried about havin their codes stolen,
  > they can arrange to use codes only usable in their banker's office
  > (not altogether a bad idea, by the way), or with a duress code
  > built-in, etc. Or none at all. Choice, and costs.

In all honesty, I don't see physical key theft to be a major problem
for individuals, since it can generally be made unprofitable. Where I
see legal key revocation as essential, is for corporate situations.
That is where a multi million dollar cost of stealing a key could still
be quite profitable. We need to figure a way to extend web of trust to
revocations and corporate identity.

  > In any case, the free markets will have a major effect. With strong
  > crypto, the communications transparently cross borders, making legal
  > moves problematic.

Unfortunately, I think that the courts will expand too. The courts may not
be able to freeze and confiscate your foreign assets, but they may be able
to block you from doing a great deal of business without very frequent
changes of 'name' and reestablishment of reputation. Also, there is always
the possibility of being hampered in the physical world. We all have to
buy groceries, and the physical means of communication will always be
vulnerable to pressure.

This is not to say that I don't think crypto will weaken government. It
will. Making court rulings effective will be far more expensive than it
currently is.