And this is at least the 3rd time I've gotten it, probably everyone
else did also -- so what's your point? Or are you just spamming?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> (try again #3...)
>
> Tim writes:
> > (Of course, the fact that their extremely complicated Terms and
> > Conditions means they will cancel a nym on the flimsiest of
> > complaints or suspicions of Wrongdoing makes their system not very
> > interesting. And not very economical for those who don't like to pay
> > $40 or $50 only to see their hard-earned nym reputations evaporate
> > because some bureaucrat in Canada has decided that Naughty Bits are
> > being exchanged.)
>
> If Canadian law enforcement comes to ZKS them with a valid complaint
> (according to Canadian law), they presumably can be forced to cancel
> the pseudonym. Refusing when they could cancel the nym might make
> them liable.
>
> Deleting pseudonyms is a fairly valueless gesture in terms of
> preventing further communications, akin perhaps to the napster
> cancellation of chat handles, though it does have inconvenience value,
> and so "punishes" the pseudonym owner to that extent, this is probably
> of no value to the attackers.
>
> They have cost the nym $10 (you get 5 nyms for your $50, right). But
> probably the larger cost is the lost reputation. It might start to
> grate to have a series of nyms cancelled repeatedly if your choice of
> conversation topic is illegal in Canada.
>
> Like with napster, deleting pseudonyms probably serves the value of
> making law enforcement and lawyer types feel they have achieved
> something, and so stroke their egos and make them go away.
>
> So although it falls short of the ideal -- it's probably as good as
> you can get with a single entity in Canadian (or US, or anywhere else)
> jurisdiction where the entity has the ability to cancel nyms.
>
> All without making any comment on the stupidity of speech laws, and
> desirability of cryptographically making them irrelevant of course.
>
> What would improve things:
>
> * fully anonymous, non-replyable communications -- no nym to cancel
>
> * non-cancelable nyms -- if this is possible, so they couldn't cancel
> a nym if they wanted to
>
> But these prevent abuse control -- ZKS might get flack if users
> started bulking mailing, executing DoS attacks or defacing web sites
> via their network if ZKS could do nothing against the perpetrators
> down. The internet protocols aren't robust enough to resist DoS, and
> typical host security sucks so much that perhaps one might be able to
> exploit some things through freedom.
>
> Some work-arounds for people with things to say which are illegal in
> Canada perhaps:
>
> * use free web mail eg. hotmail via freedom
>
> * use web mail via open anonymous proxies, via freedom
>
> -Anon
