From: jRT <jrt@asiaonline.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 95 13:46:50 PST
To: Wei Dai <weidai@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: A Fire Upon the Deep
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950107103037.10733D-100000@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950109054255.21650A-100000@asiaonline.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



When we say 'anonymous video-conferencing' here, I take it that's not the 
same as in videophones whereby you sit there and have your mugshot 
transmitted across to the other party... that would be distinctly 
un-anonymous :)

The thing being, say you set up an anonymous-video-or-otherwise-remailer, 
you have to ensure that people don't manage to get into that as such 
would obviously give away the identities of all parties.  Given that 
people can supposedly hack the DOD computer system, that doesn't seem so 
unlikely, so are anonymous-remailers really all that safe?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 jrt@AsiaOnline.Net   john@AsiaOnline.Net   PO Box 86141, Govt PO, Kln, HKG.

  Computers   Communications  Reduced Rate IDD Service   Innovative Widgets

 Help protect the environment : This message is made from recycled electrons
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 7 Jan 1995, Wei Dai wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Jan 1995, Adam Shostack wrote:
> > 	Anonymous mail has bandwidth costs that are only slightly
> > higher than regular mail.  You could hide quite a bit in most video
> > packets.  The latency is a reflection of the lack of volume, because
> > volume is needed for reordering.  If your favorite remailer gets more
> > mail, the latency will drop.
> 
> Anonymous e-mail that goes through a chain of N remailers will cost at
> least N times as much bandwidth and have N times as much latency as normal
> e-mail.  But e-mail is hardly the state-of-the-art of network
> communication, while anonymous e-mail IS the state of the art for
> anonymous communication.  How long will it take for the technology of
> anonymous video conferencing to develope, for example?  By then, of
> course, those who are not concerned with anonymity will probably have
> things such as full sensory virtual interaction. 
> 
> Note that I SUPPORT anonymous communication, but its costs of bandwidth 
> and latency may be a real obsticle to developing Cryptoanarchy (of the 
> kind described by Tim May) if most people are not willing to put up with 
> those costs.
> 
> Wei Dai
> PGP encrypted mail welcome.
> 
>