From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 06:35:30 -0800 (PST)
To: ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)
Subject: Re: Members of Parliament Problem
In-Reply-To: <v02140b01aeb1a0ff57d2@[192.0.2.1]>
Message-ID: <199611151432.JAA26727@homeport.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


	Most of the usual arguments about disallowing anonymity
actually apply to a Parliment.  There is a responsibility involved in
the execution of power.  

	This is not to condone attacking children, or killing ones
political opponents.  For an MP to imply that something he wants to
say will likely get him/his kids killed probably means that he wants
to use the power of the state in some way likely to quite upset at
least a few people.  If this is the case, then allowing him to
anonymously, and without responsibility, direct the power of the state
is congruent to tyranny.

	To answer the technical end of your question, you could build
a DC net where joining required a signed key, or build a mix which
will only accept messages signed by a member of the group.  If the
mixmasters all agree to only accept messages signed by the group, then
each mixmaster can be made a member of the group, and sign its
outbound messages as being recieved with a signature, allowing
anonymous chaining.

Adam

Peter Hendrickson wrote:
| I read awhile ago that certain members of Parliament do not speak
| their mind regarding the situation in Northern Ireland.  The reason
| they give is that they have children and they fear the IRA.
| 
| There are times when one wishes to speak anonymously, yet speak
| as a member of a group.
| 
| Is there a way to take published public keys and combine them with
| your own in such a way that your identity is not compromised, but
| it is clear beyond a doubt that you control one of a set of public
| keys?

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume