cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1995-02-02 - Re: Fundamental Question?

Header Data

From: Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl <rrothenb@ic.sunysb.edu>
To: ortenzi@interactive.net (Anthony Ortenzi)
Message Hash: 4c522a61ece6bd3daf3f72b2c725ed0da1f00b9b7696b30b119999f35777874e
Message ID: <199502020400.XAA03916@libws2.ic.sunysb.edu>
Reply To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.950201135326.29214A-100000@ns.interactive.net>
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-02 04:00:37 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 20:00:37 PST

Raw message

From: Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl <rrothenb@ic.sunysb.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 20:00:37 PST
To: ortenzi@interactive.net (Anthony Ortenzi)
Subject: Re: Fundamental Question?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.950201135326.29214A-100000@ns.interactive.net>
Message-ID: <199502020400.XAA03916@libws2.ic.sunysb.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Anthony Ortenzi wrote:
> 
> 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?

Well, it's happened in the past. Doesn't mean Usenet is perfect for it,
since nobody wants to sift through several thousand messages a day for
messages encrypted to him/her.  Also, imagine all the traffic sent to a
remailer duplicated on overy site that carries that Usenet group...

Rob

Thread