From: Derek Bell <dbell@maths.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:50:14 -0800 (PST)
To: Hallam-Baker <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: When did Mondex ever claim to be anonymous?
In-Reply-To: <3278D196.41C6@ai.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <9610311849.aa09687@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


In message <3278D196.41C6@ai.mit.edu>, Hallam-Baker writes:
>Actually the police are currently asking for permission to use wiretap
>evidence in court. There is some opposition because there are those who 
>want to keep the extent of the capability quiet. There is very good
>evidence for widespread use of wiretaps and SIGINT against the IRA.

	Interesting - I hadn't been following the matter, that's why I'd 
missed it. I knew MI5 was trying to get involved with anti-terrorism measures
in the UK, though I don't know with what success.

>Since when was cash annonymous? In the UK each banknote has a serial number 
>which is recorded at the banks when it is passed arround. There is no reason 
>why the US federal reserve wouldn't have added it to its existing note
>processing machinery since they must read the serial number during their 
>checks for countrefeit notes.

	It could be argued that it is a matter of degree - it is probably
easier to trace transactions through Mondex than with cash alone.

>If Mondex said their product was "like cash" that does not mean they
>claimed it to be anonymous.

	They say: "In everyday use Mondex transactions are private, like cash"
at http://www.mondex.com/faq.htm#anon

	Thus they are making two claims:
	1. Cash is anonymous.
	2. Mondex is like cash.

	Derek

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv

iQCVAgUBMnj0t1XdSMogwMcZAQGE5QP5AWzSBVL0OMdX73b4Dnass7zAmwV/a/Te
PX+rWRxA0oOJpkEY8BIqrIhRqsYWpfCKyE9ngjvvIapmCQVg0CGQnl2FhF/D6lUa
kGNlEDuAHfJC/OWrBJRN3+BwTUCRgyHqmhkKusaUsf+reh4NBwAA25uD3QBui7tm
Nbxzv4MTwjY=
=NMiM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----