Re: Commercial Mixmaster

[Adam Shostack <adam@bwh.harvard.edu>]

	Its worth noting that the source code to Julf's Penet remailer
is not public (AFAIK).  People use it becuase they trust Julf, or
trust people who trust Julf.

	There is clearly a market for anonymizing services in various
forms.  Hopefully, whoever is putting up cash is also looking at
building a web proxy service, a pseudononymous system, and a mail
drop/data haven type of operation (although the last might not fit in
as well.)

	If you don't see a market, I suggest you drop a line offering
services to the friendly folks at presiednt@whitehouse.gov.  I'm sure
they'd prefer a bit of privacy.

	Why pay for remailers when there are free ones?  Speed and
lawyers pop right up as damn good answers.  Putting up a couple of
p120s on a T1 in the Carribean isn't cheap, nor is making sure you
have a good lawyer who'll protect the machines when the bad guys show
up with warrants.  I'd be much happier to use a fast system on good
legal ground than a freebie.

Adam


Russ Nelson wrote:

|    The concern is not "commercialization", per se, but rather the use
|    of "commercialization" as an excuse to build in "proprietary"
|    features (Back doors?) for which no corresponding source code is
|    involved.
| 
| And the chief concern with the Clipper chip?  That it was secret.  In
| the crypto world, secret == untrustable.  Who would use a remailing
| network that was not trustable?  Who would use it when every
| cypherpunk says not to?
| 
|    Since no one has made a good case for there even being a COMMERCIAL
|    market for Mixmaster, could there be other motives?
| 
| Value is created by seeing a market that no one else sees.  Obvious
| markets have low margins, and they're getting lower and lower as
| computers help implement the obvious.


-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume