Re: Official Anonymizing

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Greg Broiles wrote: > I think this goes a little too far (though I'm also pretty skeptical about > the underlying proposal). True, it's very unlikely that cops will arrest > themselves for violating a mandatory disclosure law - expecting any group > to reliably self-police

Re: Official Anonymizing

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > It seems to me that John is taking the first steps toward a general > argument: That police should not be allowed to do undercover work. His > argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would prevent police from > infiltrating criminal organizatio

Re: Official Anonymizing

Some poor simple soul behind a remailer wrote: >Here is an example of the principle put into practice, from the >anonymous web proxy service at http://proxy.magusnet.com/proxy.html: : If you are accessing this proxy from a *.mil or *.gov address : it will not work. As a taxpaying United States C

Re: Official Anonymizing

At 02:37 PM 9/5/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: > >And, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'll mention that at C2Net we did > >sell our software to the government/intelligence agencies who wanted it - > >they paid the same prices as any other customers, signed the same sales > >contracts (we'd negoti

Re: Official Anonymizing

Greg wrote At 04:33 PM 9/4/2001 -0700, John Young wrote: >Look, I'll accept that we will all succumb to the power of the market, >so limit my proposal for full disclosure to those over 30. After that >age one should know there is no way to be truly open-minded. >And, in the spirit of full disclos

Re: Official Anonymizing

Let me jump in to say that I'm not advocating no access to anonymizers by officials only that that access be disclosed. It shouldn't be an embarrassment to reveal that federal agencies have bought such products. Disclosure as well of any features of the products sold to officials that are differ

Re: Official Anonymizing

On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 10:12:25AM -0700, Greg Broiles wrote: | I don't think this question is as easy as it sounds at first. I do. Privacy is a good, and should be available to all. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."

Re: Official Anonymizing

At 07:34 AM 9/5/2001 -0700, John Young wrote: >Thanks for the cites of Gatti. > >Greg's disclosure of C2Net's sales is appreciated. Perhaps not >surprising. What would be surprising, maybe, would be disclosure >as ZKS did in its earliest days, of reporting on meetings C2Net was >having with law e

RE: Official Anonymizing

> A. Melon writes: > John Young takes a courageous stand: > > > I propose that all anonymizers adopt a code of practice that > > any sale to officials of anonymizers or their use be disclosed > > to the public (I suggested this to ZKS early on when first > > meetings with the feds to explain the t

Re: Official Anonymizing

At 09:40 AM 9/5/2001 -0700, A. Melon wrote: >Here is an example of the principle put into practice, from the >anonymous web proxy service at http://proxy.magusnet.com/proxy.html: > >: If you are accessing this proxy from a *.mil or *.gov address >: it will not work. As a taxpaying United States Ci

Re: Official Anonymizing

John Young takes a courageous stand: > I propose that all anonymizers adopt a code of practice that > any sale to officials of anonymizers or their use be disclosed > to the public (I suggested this to ZKS early on when first > meetings with the feds to explain the technology were being > some

Re: Official Anonymizing

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, John Young wrote: > Nobody has yet seen an fbi.gov in the logs, or nsa.mil/gov, > though a few ucia.gov and nro.gov crop up, and the ubiquitous > nscs.mil. fbi.gov = .usdoj.gov, as far as web logs go.

Re: Official Anonymizing

Let me try to restate John's proposal, which has some very attractive qualities. There are a few questions, it seems to me: 1. Should we require by law that government employees never act under cover of anonymity? (In practice, what does that mean? Does that mean they can't lie about their tru

RE: Official Anonymizing

At 03:45 PM 9/4/2001 -0500, you wrote: >Real-To: "Aimee Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Are you talking about Gatti? Sounds like it. The opinion itself is at ; media reports at

Re: Official Anonymizing

OTECTED] > Subject: CDR: Re: Official Anonymizing > > On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 01:42:28PM -0700, John Young wrote: > | I propose that all anonymizers adopt a code of practice that > | any sale to officials of anonymizers or their use be disclosed > | to the public (I suggested this to Z

Re: Official Anonymizing

Sorry, I'm not proposing a law, certainly not on this list. Rather a voluntary concordance for reputation building, not only in citizen-world but in government-world. There has been a lot of good discussion about this here in the past and I'm not going against that wisdom. Greg is tracking that

Re: Official Anonymizing

At 07:53 PM 9/4/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >[...] >2. Since the people enforcing this hypothetical law are the same people >with the greatest incentives to violate it, what makes a disinterested >observer believe that it will be effective? If we're not interested in >effectiveness, why

Re: Official Anonymizing

On Tuesday, September 4, 2001, at 03:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hear Hear!! > > Yours, > > J.A. Terranson > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why are you sending me-toos _twice_? (Yeah, I remember your explanation: you send things to two different nodes, with two different sender addresses, to make s

Re: Official Anonymizing

I try to abide the principle that if one gets anonymized all should. However, there is a disparity in who gets to leverage that anonymity -- from the citizen to the empowered official. We have now more privilege of conealment on the official side, and that needs redress, constant redress a rebel

Re: Official Anonymizing

At 04:33 PM 9/4/2001 -0700, John Young wrote: >And I am not as sanguine about the wisdom of providing technology >to government on the same footing as the citizen. There is more >than a bit of marketing opportunism is this view -- and government >knows very well what power the purse has to seduce

Re: Official Anonymizing

At 04:33 PM 9/4/2001 -0700, John Young wrote: >Look, I'll accept that we will all succumb to the power of the market, >so limit my proposal for full disclosure to those over 30. After that >age one should know there is no way to be truly open-minded. And, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'll me

RE: Official Anonymizing

Are you talking about Gatti? ~Aimee > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Steve Schear > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 1:33 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Official Anonymizing > > > At 01

Re: Official Anonymizing

At 01:42 PM 9/4/01 -0700, John Young wrote: >On ZKS selling anonymizing products that are publicly available >to governmental officials does raise an issue of whether officials >should, or should be able to, conceal their official identities when >working cyberspace in an official capacity. I thin

Re: Official Anonymizing

John wrote: >On ZKS selling anonymizing products that are publicly available >to governmental officials does raise an issue of whether officials >should, or should be able to, conceal their official identities when >working cyberspace in an official capacity. I think not, though >it might be as

Re: Official Anonymizing

At 01:42 PM 9/4/2001 -0700, John Young wrote: >On ZKS selling anonymizing products that are publicly available >to governmental officials does raise an issue of whether officials >should, or should be able to, conceal their official identities when >working cyberspace in an official capacity. I th

Re: Official Anonymizing

On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 01:42:28PM -0700, John Young wrote: | I propose that all anonymizers adopt a code of practice that | any sale to officials of anonymizers or their use be disclosed | to the public (I suggested this to ZKS early on when first | meetings with the feds to explain the technol