From: Adam Shostack <adam@bwh.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 21:18:16 PST
To: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: Lance Rose writes anti-cryptoanarchy in WIRED
In-Reply-To: <199501190404.UAA24779@netcom6.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199501190516.AAA09260@bwh.harvard.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Tim wrote:

| rishab@dxm.ernet.in wrote:
| 
| > Sheesh. And here we are, post-BlackNet, discussing untraceable paid-for
| > anon-remailers (which exist today on Sameer's c2.org blind server) and
| > data havens. I haven't bothered to hunt for Lance's address, which is not
| > given, but really I thought someone as prominent a SysLawyer as him would
| > be clued in. Nor have I found the time to send WIRED a letter. 
| 
| First, I want to know how Rishab, in India, gets "Wired" so early (or
| why I, right next to Silicon Valley, get it so late). He's mentioned
| the February issue twice now, and all I have is the January "White
| Album."

	He doesn't have to contend with the USPS?   (My copy arrived
today, quite beat up, and missing most of its white envelope.  Sigh.)

| Second, I didn't know Lance Rose was a lawyer, or even a "SysLawyer"
| (?). When I met him a couple of years ago, he'd just gotten out of

	You're thinking of Len Rose, not Lance Rose.  (Assuming this
is the L. Rose who features in The Hacker Crackdown.)


	Regarding Rishab's points about the article, I think its a
useful fantasy.  Let Lance think that net.cops will win, until the
reality proves otherwise.  At least he doesn't call for banning
remailers.


Adam


-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
						       -Hume