1995-02-01 - Re: Fundamental Question?

Header Data

From: Andrew Lowenstern <andrew_loewenstern@il.us.swissbank.com>
To: Anthony Ortenzi <ortenzi@interactive.net>
Message Hash: 14dd07a313c4756e94d22498579960e22c9f75b96cece409ba03783f20c257b9
Message ID: <9502011924.AA02931@ch1d157nwk>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-01 19:28:22 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 11:28:22 PST

Raw message

From: Andrew Lowenstern <andrew_loewenstern@il.us.swissbank.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 11:28:22 PST
To: Anthony Ortenzi <ortenzi@interactive.net>
Subject: Re: Fundamental Question?
Message-ID: <9502011924.AA02931@ch1d157nwk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>  Although I understand the need for remailers for anonymity, is it
>  not true that the whole idea of encryption (good encryption, that
>  is) is that no matter who gets the encrypted text, it really doesn't
>  matter?  Does this not mean that something like USENET is *perfect*
>  for this?

Usenet may be provide good untracability for the recipient, but the if the  
sender desires untracability she needs to use a remailer or some other  
service to get the message into Usenet.  Also, the recipient needs to know if  
and where to look for the message.  If the recipient isn't anticipating the  
receipt of a message untracably, or doesn't care if 'they' know she is  
receiving the message, then Usenet isn't necessary.


andrew





Thread