Re: Privacy (Was Re: Rant (Was Re: ...FTP...))

[John McDermott <jjm () jkintl com>]

Adam, 

You missed half my question.  I was asking about anonymity *with* some sort 
of authentication.  That is some way to be sure I am the same person I was 
before.  In other words, in the case of the IRS employee in your example, 
if she sent two messges to <whomever> about the situation at the IRS, it 
would be nice for the recipient to know they both came from the same 
person.  That is *different*, I believe, than the total anonymity we have 
now.

--john

--- On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:13:52 -0400  Adam Shostack <adam () homeport org> 
wrote:

> Anonymity is damned useful.  Just ask the woman who is about to be
> fired by the IRS for not covering her face when testifying before
> congress.  Heck, ask any whistleblower about the usefulness of
> anonymity.  Or ask someone who is being stalked if they like how many
> details of their life are public.  Ask someone who wants an HIV test.
>
> For more, see the marketing stuff at Zero Knowledge (www.zks.net) or
> the Anonymizer (www.anonymizer.com)
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 1999 at 10:03:04AM +0000, John McDermott wrote:
>
> | My question is: is there a benefit to deploying a system where we can 
> | provide anonymity, but still authenticate?  That is, can I send a 
message 
> | to a list, for example, as "Joe Blow", which is not my real name :-), 
but 
> | still provide, say, a certificate in the name of Joe which assures the 
> | readers that I am Mr. Blow?  Is there a benefit in that (or in other 
> | anonymity for that matter)?
>
> -- 
> "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
>                                                      -Hume

-----------------End of Original Message-----------------

-------------------------------------
Name: John McDermott
VOICE: +1 505/377-6293 FAX +1 505/377-6313
E-mail: John McDermott <jjm () jkintl com>
Writer and Computer Consultant
-------------------------------------