From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:28:30 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Remailers and ecash
Message-ID: <199710010759.JAA27558@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Bill Stewart wrote:
>Latency is essential to security, though high volume reduces the
>latency that's needed to get a given level of security.

Latency may be a means to get security in the current remailer design,
but it is a means to the end and not the end itself.  This doesn't
mean we shouldn't use latency to get security, but it is undesirable,
like using cinderblocks for construction.  The reason I point this out
is that it is important to separate design choices to achieve a goal
from the goal itself.

If we had a remailer network in which each customer had a constant
bandwidth connection to one or more remailers, you could have zero
latency mail. (Actually, this would be nice to use with those Comsec
phones.)

It is my understanding that serious naval vessels like aircraft
carriers use constant bandwidth channels to defeat traffic analysis.
That is, to every place they might wish to communicate, they
continuously broadcast encrypted information.  Most of the time the
channel is empty, of course, but nobody outside can tell when.

Monty Cantsin
Editor in Chief
Smile Magazine
http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html
http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBNDHpnZaWtjSmRH/5AQF2Awf6AoTd0EnojWRoLGsTqVgkZdirRWqFcNNk
nYE7Eh455GxPPfsapn/Q811cmzflrC6TUE6sY0sga/hdpQy4IgPsgRDnC5d+LCWR
gO8CEwGXkd6Gl3DEduIL2k7eKeuXoZqK1VVgcEnY4Vsci4yJhcl/FLOx5yGcEVNM
850LGQz/PgEg1XhoMpeOkSBh7vtX+nMOyENzALwf11sg/64tKRCCTHfqgfKSn1tC
IT6yrZ2NqUvMPxbomZ4U9DPsc0oz0TggrqHQneNWw1lYjzPDpXRn8jiSlalTZcFs
kYFeyQQbw23e0Y/Qevtjn8/QngF/4BcyC21mPxaz35U1EwiFV0Lp/Q==
=tfWS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----