From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 10:54:53 +0800
To: "'cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Anonymous Remailers
In-Reply-To: <01BC603F.4B529240@pc1901.ibpinc.com>
Message-ID: <19970515192926.34411@bywater.songbird.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, May 14, 1997 at 11:30:36PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> At 9:25 PM -0800 5/14/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
[...]
> 
> Collusion between a carefully--or even randomly--selected chain of, say, 20
> of these various and mutually-hostile groups would seem to be "unlikely."
> 
> Kent, stop babbling and spend a few hours reading up on the basics of how
> remailers work, the issues of collusion, and the discussions we've had for
> several years on these issues.

Hmm.  I did read, and I thought I understood this.  I claim that if
the remailers collude, then there in no anonymity.  Correct? Even if I
insert my own remailer in the list it doesn't help, if the others are
all in cahoots.  This seems pretty obvious.  They all compare logs, 
and saved copies of the messages, and my message can be tracked from 
beginning to end.  Right?

I see a list of remailers posted on cypherpunks periodically -- a
"cypherpunks" approved list, therefore.  Lucky Green admits publically
that he personally knows several of the remailer operators.  And 
clearly, remailer operators must share a common ideological focus...

There might even be a few honest remailer operators out there, but
undoubtedly they have been heavily diluted by those that are part of
the cypherpunks conspiracy.  So the odds of picking a colluding
remailer chain are pretty high.  When I send my mail the first one in
the chain will notice mail from songbird, and alert his buddies.  If
an honest remailer is in the chain the mail will conveniently be lost,
of course.  Only chains composed of co-conspirators will allow my mail
to get through... 

You will probably say that this was an insane conspiracy theory, and
that I don't understand how the remailers operate, and how
ideologically different the operators all are.  You might think that I
am ignorant, or being facetious, or that I am really just out of touch
with reality. 

But, on the other hand, you should be very familiar with this mode of
thought -- it is so similar to your "analyses" of the "gubmint".  You
are quite fond of clever caricatures, of sly and subtle inuendo, of
imputing slimy motives and conspiracies, of looking at the worst
in people...all justified by righteous anger, of course.  Of course,
to you righteous anger justifies murdering babies...("Broken eggs, and
all that." -- TCM)

However, it's not my prefered mode of thought, and I can't sustain it
for long: It does seem fairly unlikely that a large percentage of
remailers collude, and in theory it is probably fairly safe to send
through them.  At this time I can't really think of anything I have to
say that requires anonymity -- my comment to Lucky was intended to be
a light-hearted reference to my humble stature among the cypherpunks. 

"Negativity is an easy habit, often confused with sophistication."  
-- Anne Beetem

-- 
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
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html