From: Adam Shostack <adam@bwh.harvard.edu>
To: ortenzi@interactive.net (Anthony Ortenzi)
Message Hash: d0e92cd22df57ec06326066b9515c7b16d5b5825e226305837686bcb44abcf91
Message ID: <199502011911.OAA09754@bwnmr5.bwh.harvard.edu>
Reply To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.950201135326.29214A-100000@ns.interactive.net>
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-01 19:12:48 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 11:12:48 PST
From: Adam Shostack <adam@bwh.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 11:12:48 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: <199502011911.OAA09754@bwnmr5.bwh.harvard.edu>
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?
Its awfully expensive to send messages all over creation so
one person can read them. Much better to send it to the person who
wants to read it. Besides, USENET propagation can be slower than
remailers; the far ends of the chain can often take around a week.
Adam
--
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
-Hume
Return to February 1995
Return to “Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl <rrothenb@ic.sunysb.edu>”