From: lmccarth@cs.umass.edu
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 20:25:05 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: has this been on cypherpunks? (fwd)
Message-ID: <199602070853.DAA14781@opine.cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I just sent this to the remailer operators' list, but it may be of interest
here too. I think Tim or Lucky or someone suggested something like GAI
(Government Access to Identities) here a while back....

Forwarded message:
> Lance writes:
> > Is it just me, or does this guy make a convincing case for the need for
> > remailers without ever showing one shred of evidence to back up his fear
> > mongering?
> 
> Exactly. Ted Byfield mentioned on cpunks that it reads like a free
> association session. I find the piece quite schizophrenic. (IANA 
> psychologist :)  They alternate between fairly eloquent arguments for the
> roots of remailers in fundamental principles of freedom and privacy, and 
> the bizarre "anonymity as a disease" analogy. 
> 
> I hypothesize that the Strassmann & Marlow paper is meant to lay the 
> groundwork for some sort of eventual Government Access to Identities proposal
> (which would more likely be termed "identity escrow" by the Feds). It's 
> about the only way I can reconcile statements like the following 
> (juxtaposed by me, not them):
> 
> 	"...it becomes politically unacceptable to suppress remailers
> 	as potential sources of criminal acts. Such absolute 
> 	prohibitions would never pass through a legislative process...."
> 
> 	"As in the case of [various diseases] it will take disasters
> 	before the public may accept that some forms of restrictions
> 	on the electronic freedom of speech and privacy may be
> 	worthwhile."
> 
> 	"We trust that this will be seen as a useful contribution to an
> 	already raging debate of how to find a balance between the
> 	desirable and the dangerous."
> 
> I suspect the key phrases there are "absolute prohibitions", "some forms of
> restrictions", and "find a balance". 
> 
> I'm still surprised that the paper takes such a conciliatory stance towards
> anonymity and pseudonymity. Strong crypto and GAK-free crypto have big 
> corporate constituencies, but I see strong and GAI-free anonymity/pseudonymity
> as much more vulnerable. I'm tempted to declare this a guarded preliminary
> success of the cpunks remailer community -- we are seen as a viable player
> in "the game", potentially capable of forcing at least a compromise on
> nymity issues.
> 
> -Lewis
>