From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 95 08:04:01 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Data Havens..A consumer perspective
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9501120150.C3416-0100000@barton.spring.com>
Message-ID: <199501121602.IAA00806@largo.remailer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   From: Censored Girls Anonymous <carolb@barton.spring.com>

   1. You have what I want or need.

You have a _service_ I want to use.

   8. Welcome to the world of data "coatchecking".

"Data coatchecking" certainly has different connotations than "data
haven".  I think for marketing purposes, the name "data haven" is
inaccurate.  A data haven, one might expect, has semantic structure to
it.  Offsite storage is much less than a data haven; it's much more
like a remote file system.

Using the word "haven" to refer to a remote storage facility removes
the connotation of ordinary usage, which, as we all know is a
perfectly upright, normal, and (for those in the USA) a downright
Capital-A _American_ thing to do.

   From the moment the data leaves their hands, until I return it,
   they have no right, nor I no obligation, to divulge anything about it.

You don't want the operator of a remote storage facility revealing
links about usage patterns of individuals, but as far as the data
itself goes, there's no reason it couldn't be made public (there's
also no good reason _to_ make it public, either).  Someone who sends
plaintext to a remote site is foolish.

Eric