From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 14:56:04 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re:  Kid Gloves or Megaphones
Message-ID: <ad6e18d20f0210040753@[205.199.118.202]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


First, let me say I sympathize with the "problems of anonymity" that Hal
has had to deal with. He began running his remailers about as early as
anyone, so he clearly has had to encounter problems that to most of us are
merely academic issues.

However, the problems anyone has with "anonymity" or "cash" are universal
ones. The real issue is this: should the problems and opportunities for
mischief that sometimes come up with anonymity or cash be grounds for
outlawing anonymity and cash?

At 6:18 PM 3/14/96, Hal wrote:

>As a remailer operator I unfortunately see more of the seamy side of
>anonymity than most people.  I do think there are people who will take
>advantage of this technology in harmful ways.  So payee anonymity will
>certainly make life more interesting.

I view things pretty simply. Often I am faced with choosing to deal with
people on a fully or mostly anonymous basis, and I am faced with dealing
with people who offer cash. I can choose to deal with these people or their
payments, or not. I can demand further identification, insiste that they
pay with more traceable forms of payment, such as personal checks, or not.

Yes, there is a chance of abuse. Even of criminality.

But I strongly prefer making the choice myself, rather than having a
government decide for me.

Fully anonymous digital cash--which I believe has been implicit in Chaum's
system since the gitgo, as soon as anonymous money-changers are
extant--will certainly make possible certain behaviors variously regarded
as "crimes." As Hal of course knows, these potential crimes have been
debated by us many times. (One of them, most recently, is Bell's version of
untraceable assassination payments.)

But of course the same sorts of problems are implicit in anonymous cash
transactions, in anonymous mail sending (note that letters have stamps,
with no requirement of identification, at least not yet), and in the very
presence of immediately-negotiable currency.

I of course agree with Eric Hughes' point that we should not be attempting
to "sanitize" the possibilities. (One of the depressing things for me has
been the extent to which so many subscribers to this list think that the
main agenda is some sort of discussion of PGP 3.0 or of IETF standards, or
even of Java applets, without any real awareness of the longterm
implications. And when people ask about political implications, there are
even mother hens who demand "What does this have to do with crypto?"
Depressing.)

As to not sanitizing, look again at the .sig I have used in more-or-less
the same form for several years.

--Tim May



Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1  | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."