1997-05-16 - Re: Anonymous Remailers

Header Data

From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
To: cypherpunks@algebra.com
Message Hash: b9ce39d3382d6df16587c70ff31fd65205103345e217fa1766db8808da610a63
Message ID: <19970516084846.60052@bywater.songbird.com>
Reply To: <19970515192926.34411@bywater.songbird.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-16 16:07:17 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 00:07:17 +0800

Raw message

From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 00:07:17 +0800
To: cypherpunks@algebra.com
Subject: Re: Anonymous Remailers
In-Reply-To: <19970515192926.34411@bywater.songbird.com>
Message-ID: <19970516084846.60052@bywater.songbird.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Fri, May 16, 1997 at 12:34:33PM +0200, Ulf Möller wrote:
> > Hmm.  I did read, and I thought I understood this.  I claim that if
> > the remailers collude, then there in no anonymity.  Correct?
> 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?
> Wrong. One trusted mix is enough to guarantee anonymity: There is a
> large number of fixed-size messages coming in and a large number of
> messages going out in random order.  (Consult the archives for
> information about possible attacks, such as flooding a remailer with
> dummy messages, and how to detect/prevent them.)

"Guarantee" is a strong word, wouldn't you say? Simple case: you have
two messages; one you know I wrote, the other I didn't, you don't know
which.  You could say that is "anonymity".  That's a reasonable use 
of the term.  But it wouldn't make me feel secure.  So that boils 
down to what is a "large" number.  (I confess I *haven't* read the 
archives about flooding attacks.  However, I don't see how they could 
be guarded against if *all* the other remailers are in collusion.  
But perhaps that case has been considered...)

> > 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.
> So you say Raph actually *is* part of the cypherpunk conspirary??!

Of course.  I don't know Raph from Adam -- *I* just see a list posted
on cypherpunks.  For that matter, of course, you could be Tim May, as
are all the "(T)ruth (M)ongers", and many other of the "personalities"
on this list... 

> BTW, that list is the "list of reliable remailers", not the "list of
> cypherpunk approved remailers".  Now guess how a remailer qualifies to
> be listed.

J E Hoover certified them?  If I persist in my conspiracy theory, 
then it makes absolutely no difference how they qualify -- the list 
is just text produced by the cp conspiracy, after all, creatively 
edited to make it look legit.

But seriously, I thought it was buy sending "ping" messages through 
them -- is there something more to it?

> > And clearly, remailer operators must share a common ideological
> > focus...
> Remailer operators share the belief that it must be possible to use
> the net anonymously, without leaving traces.  Is that what you mean?
> PS: Did you know that one remailer operator formerly was a soldier in
> East Germany's National People's Army?

How do you know that?  And why should I believe you?

Anyway, Ulf, as I said in my previous message, this was all started by
me poking fun of my "contemptible" status among the cyphperpunks. 
That status is partially fueled by the fact that I work for that evil
conspiracy, the "government".  (In all honesty, I must confess that it
may also be partially fueled by various failings of my own.)

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