From: "Wilson, Jamie (J.R.)" <jwilso37@visteonet.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 05:52:04 -0800 (PST)
To: "'cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE: Postcard Debates
Message-ID: <199812141352.IAA01172@mailfw2.ford.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Length: 3248
Lines: 97


The problem with the USPS is that it is government run -- like anything
government run, it doesn't work right.  It's too expensive, too slow, and
too unreliable.  Email, on the other hand, is largely handled by the private
sector.  Hence, it works better.  

What I find interesting (in response to your note that the USPS would
charge), is that the U.S. government had to actually pass a law to make sure
the U.S. government doesn't start taxing the Internet.  

____________________________________________________
Jamie R. Wilson                     


-----Original Message-----
From: Reeza! [mailto:howree@cable.navy.mil]
Sent: Friday, 11 December, 1998 20:51
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: RE: Postcard Debates


This would open the door for the USPS to charge for each email sent. 
The same rules? No. Based on those rules, but not the same rules.
The same rules would slow email down considerably also, wouldn't they???<g>

Reeza!



At 08:41 AM 12/11/98 -0500, Wilson, Jamie (J.R.) wrote:
>If everyone just encrypted their messages then no suspicions would be
raised
>regarding the use of encryption.  Most people use envelopes, plain and
>simple -- and as a result no one questions what they are hiding.  It's
>understood that mail is private and therefore people have a right to seal
it
>in an envelope and not worry about people tampering with it.  On the same
>note, there are federal regulations and penalties (in the U.S. anyway) for
>tampering with mail and interrupting the delivery of it.  The same laws
>should apply to email.
>
>____________________________________________________
>Jamie R. Wilson                     
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Wenzler [mailto:rwenzler@usachoice.com]
>Sent: Thursday, 10 December, 1998 13:56
>To: Mbishop645@aol.com
>Cc: maven@weirdness.com; hab@gamegirlz.com; Cypherpunks@toad.com
>Subject: Re: 
>
>
>
>
>Mbishop645@aol.com wrote:
>> 
>> >HaB wrote:
>> ><snip>
>> >>     That's a good place to begin, though.  "Would you send a letter to
>> >> someone without an envelope?"  "Then why not put your email in the
>> >> electronic equivalent of one?"
>> >>
>> >> balance.
>> >
>> >Would I send a letter to someone without an envelope?
>> >One word: postcard.
>> 
>> Ahh, but would you tape a check for your phone bill to a postcard? Other
>> than writing a greeting to someone what else do you use a postcard for?
>
>No, I would not tape a phone bill check to a postcard. There is the 
>chance for it to fall off.
>
>There is different methods of sending mail for different levels of
>security and functionality. Some people make it obvious what is inside
>an envelope. (who would not recognize a Christmas card from the
>envelope?) Others make it as bland and normal as possible to
>have it go by without much notice.
>
>It all depends on how secure you want it. Some things you can do
>with what amounts to postcard security.
>
>What amount of security do you want for your email? Would you be
>willing to do something extra for that security?
>
>This type of question is up to each person. How much risk is the
>person willing to take. Each person has the responsibility to
>understand what the risks are and to decide what risks they are
>willing to take.
>
>
>