----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Schear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Digital cash and campaign finance reform

> At 04:51 PM 9/8/2003 -0700, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Steve Schear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >[anonymous funding of politicians]
> > > Comments?
> >
> >Simple attack: Bob talks to soon to be bought politician. "Tomorrow
> >recieve a donation of $50k, you'll know where it came from."
> >Next day, buyer makes 500 $100 donations (remember you can't link him to
> >transaction), 50k arrives through the mix. Politician knows where it came
> >from, but no one can prove it.
> Not so fast.  I said the mix would delay and randomize the arrival of
> payments.  So, some of the contributions would arrive almost immediately
> others/many might take weeks to arrive.

You act like they aren't already used to addressing that "problem." I'll go
back to the Bustamante, simply because it is convenient right now.
Bustamante recieved a multi-million dollar donation from the Native
Americans, this was not done through a single check, that would be illegal,
instead it was done through multiple smaller checks, each of which ends up
randomized and delayed in processing (USPS is wonderful source of
randomness), so the actual occurance of the donations is scattered acros
several days, from several accounts, by several people, and I'm sure
Bustamante never even looked to see who the donations were actually from,
just that the full amount arrived. The "problem" that you found, is already
addressed, and already not a problem.

Trust Laboratories
Changing Software Development

The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to