From: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 17:52:47 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Is Chaum's System Traceable or Untraceable?
Message-ID: <199605192319.QAA07738@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:10 AM 5/19/96 -0400, Simon Spero wrote:
>> > (On the other hand, I have had a longstanding faith that the system can be
>> > made to be both payer- and payee-anonymous. Moneychangers, for example.)
..
>This scheme can't be used with the ecash API, and I believe is not looked 
>on kindly when applying for ecash licences. It makes you a lot more 
>vulnerable to  traffic analysis

There are at least two reasons for wanting payee anonymity
- general privacy
- criminal activities, e.g. ransom, where payee doesn't trust payer.

In the latter case, the facts that collaboration is required,
special software is needed, and licenses are violated are not really
a problem - the Bad Guy can give the payer the code along with the 
ransom note, and doesn't care about the license.  Traffic analysis
is a concern, but you're probably not going to collect ransom from
the same person on a regular basis, and for blackmail, you can
keep changing the payment address, and you're a bit less worried
about the payer's location being noticed than if you were collaborating
in something like tax evasion.
#					Thanks;  Bill
# Bill Stewart, stewarts@ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215
# goodtimes signature virus innoculation