At 3:31 PM -0800 2/28/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Austin,
>
>Thanks for your note below. A question, though: Can you tell us what your
>plans are for licensing the patents in a way that would permit payor- and
>payee-anonymous digital cash?
>
>Do you have *any* plans to do such a thing, either for noncommercial/free
>or commercial use?
>
>Stefan B. told me on the record at FC'00 (and I quoted him in an article)
>saying he would oppose such a move. Adam S. told me the next day after
>reading my article that ZKS had made no such decision one way or another.
>
>Which is it?
People like Brands and Chaum are blinded (no pun intended) to the very real
needs for _both_ sides of the anonymity equation.
I was surprised at one of the CFPs (probably '97) to have Chaum explaining
to me why payer anonymity (a customer in a store) was "good" but payee
anonymity (the store owner) was "bad."
It took me all of 5 seconds to think of a bunch of examples where payee
anonymity is JUST AS IMPORTANT as payer anonymity:
-- a seller of birth control information or products in a Muslim or
Catholic regime
-- a seller of any controversial information--and the list of controversial
information is very long indeed
(etc. Many examples.)
In fact, I told Chaum that there is a fundamental symmetry in the role of
buyer and seller, that there is NO PREFERRED ORDERING. This was later
encapsulated by Goldberg, Barnes, myself, and others, in the "everyone a
mint" point about first class objects.
That Brands is still spouting the oldthink about "the banks won't like it"
is...to be expected.
Fuck his patents. They NEED to be stolen. It's the right thing to do.
--Tim May
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
