Re: Problems with anonymous escrow 2--response

[tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)]

This will be a much shorter than my reply of yesterday, to Part 1 of Hal's
comments.


>Besides the question of trustworthiness, another problem I see with
>anonymous escrow agents applies more generally to any form of
>anonymous business.  Anonymity makes sense to me for the individual.
>Each person manages his own affairs and he can keep secret or reveal
>what he wants.  But at the business level it is going to be much
>harder to keep the same level of secrecy.  It is hard for me to see
>how a business larger than two or three people can really expect to
>operate with the kind of anonymity we are talking about here.

I see most businesses as very small. Or at least I see a large number of
very small businesses. Like today, with consultants, one-person companies,
small software firms, etc. Large corporations had their day, as described
in "The Nature of the Firm," but the reasons are declining. The
difficulties in keeping secrets, the need to insulate entities from
lawsuits, and the various laws requiring employer-paid benefits, are all
causing large monolithic organizations to downsize. (Not in all cases, of
course.) How far this will go is unknown of course.

But I grant you that most of my comments apply to individuals dealing with
other individuals. Over the Net, this seems plausible. (Even for larger
companies, they can designate someone to be their liaison, and not know his
identity mapping...just an idea.)

>These escrow agents will need significant assets to be useful, and

I don't buy this. Escrow agents who are anonymous need no assets at
all...what good would assets do if they can't be traced? More generally,
reputation capital is what they need, not physical assets.

>probably staffs of at least dozens or hundreds of actuaries and other
>professionals who will judge the safety and appropriateness of the
>various deals the agency is offered.  How can you expect to keep the

Underworld figures who make snap judgements on drug deals, on fencing
goods, etc., don't need or don't use "hundreds of actuaries." Computers
will of course make things even easier. I see the model as being more
similar to Asian and Middle Eastern traders, where complicated arbitrage
decisions are made every day by very small groups (individuals or
families).

Besides, the AEAs are not doing risk underwriting in a central way...they
are agreeing to hold parts of a transaction and then make a fair decision
on whether the terms and conditions were met. If research is needed, they
can farm it out (untraceably, of course).


>location and true identities of the business principals secret?  It is
>said that no more than three people can keep a secret; can we really
>expect a staff of hundreds not to reveal that they actually work for
>the mysterious XYZ escrow agency, accessible only through Blacknet?
>Even with the Mafia, everyone knows who works there (judging from the
>newspapers).  Can we really expect more secrecy for these anonymous
>businesses?

But few people know the details of actual Mafia deals, and these are in the
"real world." Deals over remailer nets are vastly less observable.

>
>I think that it is really impossible for a business of any significant
>size to be anonymous in the same way that an individual can.  The idea
>of an escrow agency that retains its anonymity seems impractical to
>me.
>
>Hal

Not to me. Time will tell.

--Tim May


..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."