1997-05-15 - Re: Anonymous Remailers

Header Data

From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
To: “‘cypherpunks@toad.com>
Message Hash: 4b27a6f21a426c9e2e8dcb450fcfa0f86456d6498d25878d2d831d0f087e222d
Message ID: <19970514222526.39369@bywater.songbird.com>
Reply To: <01BC603F.4B529240@pc1901.ibpinc.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-15 05:46:27 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 13:46:27 +0800

Raw message

From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 13:46:27 +0800
To: "'cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Anonymous Remailers
In-Reply-To: <01BC603F.4B529240@pc1901.ibpinc.com>
Message-ID: <19970514222526.39369@bywater.songbird.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Wed, May 14, 1997 at 06:01:23PM -0700, Lucky Green wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 1997, Roger J. Jones wrote:
> > Why is it that some who are very concerned about their personal privacy utilize anonymous remailers that:
> > 
> > 1) Log all of their mail messages?
> > 2) Are in many cases reputed to be run by foreign intelligence services?
> Net.myths
> > Do they really trust the owner of the remailer? (Unless of course, it is
> their remailer?) I seem to be missing something. 
> You are missing the fact that you can chain remailers. Therefore it is 
> pretty much irrelevant if some remailers are compromised.
> Then again, I know several remailer operators personally. Which makes me 
> less worried about the them being foreign intelligence agents.

Lucky, since I am considered contemptible by several c'punks, I worry
about them more than I would about foreign intelligence agents.  I
have actually considered sending some things through the remailers,
but I don't trust them -- I don't find cypherpunks any less
susceptible to ideology than foreign agents... 

Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55