1998-01-19 - Re: (eternity) Eternity as a secure filesystem/backup medium (fwd)

Header Data

From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
To: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer <cypherpunks@ssz.com>
Message Hash: 77c0e5362729123f0078505faddc04469c671d99efff0bb02af92b4149672647
Message ID: <19980119001935.11065@songbird.com>
Reply To: <199801190625.AAA20771@einstein.ssz.com>
UTC Datetime: 1998-01-19 08:29:34 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:29:34 +0800

Raw message

From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:29:34 +0800
To: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer <cypherpunks@ssz.com>
Subject: Re: (eternity) Eternity as a secure filesystem/backup medium (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199801190625.AAA20771@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <19980119001935.11065@songbird.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Mon, Jan 19, 1998 at 12:25:02AM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> Forwarded message:
> > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:31:38 -0800
> > From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
> > Subject: Re: (eternity) Eternity as a secure filesystem/backup medium (fwd)
> > You must find the advertising business completely mystifying, then.
> Not at all. I even manage to use it well enough to make money selling my
> own services now and again...
> > You pay to have your data disseminated in a form that you can be later
> > paid -- for example, leave the juciest part of the data in encrypted
> > form, along with a public key through which payment options can be
> > negotiated. 
> Exactly, which means we are left with two results. Either the source forgoes
> the d-h completely, since they could dissiminate their data through a normal
> anon remailer and usenet (for example) completely eliminating the whole
> point of the d-h and the consequential payments - this reduces their
> overhead considerably. Or they share the income through the d-h operator.
> Now if the source has two halves of a clue to rub together their share will
> include whatever money they paid the d-h operator in the first place - thus
> eliminating the need for the source to have paid in the first place. Either
> way the source ends up with the net effect they don't pay the d-h operator
> for their services - the end user does. In only one case is there a economic
> reason for the d-h to exist. Now if the goal of a d-h operator is to make
> some income which model would you choose? From the source's perspective the
> d-h model makes sense because it places two (not one) layer of anonymity
> between them and Mallet. As a source, which model would you choose?
> Either way you look at it, the end result is the end user pays the bills.
> > Why on earth do you try to be an ISP, then?
> Why on earth are you assuming that is what I do? While I have sold dedicated
> and intermittent dial-ups they in general have not been to the general
> public and my customer base is not one that comes from general advertising.
> At no point has it ever been a significant portion of my income in any case.
> As a matter of fact I haven't advertised in any public forums. Don't know
> where you get your data about me from but you really should go to the horses
> mouth instead of some jackass. Your data would be much more accurate.

Actually, the only data I have is your comments on CP over the past
year or so. 

Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"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