1997-02-12 - anonymity and e-cash

Header Data

From: Lee Tien <tien@well.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: aa0310565164f15d02749a8d45a05735b2bdcde1db2b7ecc53b0ea815b535b3d
Message ID: <199702122141.NAA05987@toad.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-02-12 21:41:28 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:41:28 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Lee Tien <tien@well.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:41:28 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: anonymity and e-cash
Message-ID: <199702122141.NAA05987@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


The NSA's research report on e-cash says:

	"The ideal situation (from the point of view of privacy advocates)
is that neither payer nor payee should know the identity of the other. This
makes remote transactions using electronic cash totally anonymous:  no one
knows where Alice spends her money and who pays her.

	"It turns out that this is too much to ask: there is no way in such
a scenario for the consumer to obtain a signed receipt.  Thus we are forced
to settle for payer anonymity."

Keeping in mind I am only a lawyer, my skim of Schneier (2d ed.) didn't
illuminate.  The discussion of digital cash seemed to assume no payee
anonymity.  But the immediate previous section of dining cryptographers
involved (it seemed) recipient untraceability.

Is payee anonymity technically possible?  Under what conditions?

If so, is the issue social, e.g., as NSA notes, the lack of a signed receipt?

Thanks,
Lee








Thread