Re: Members of Parliament Problem

At 6:32 PM 11/17/1996, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
>At 1:23 PM 11/17/1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
>>At 11:43 AM -0800 11/17/96, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
>> For the specific example Peter cites, of a member of Parliament who doesn't
>> like the possibility of anonymity....well, he wouldn't be part of the
>> DC-Net would he? Generally, there are no cryptographic solutions that will
>> encompass the case where some member wants to speak anonymously, but no one
>> else does. If a message originates from "someone in Parliament," but only
>> one member of Parliament is set up to speak anonymously, then of course by
>> simple elimination he is the speaker. As before, this is beyond any
>> cryptographic solution.

> It turns out - amazingly enough - that this is not true!

It turns out - not so amazingly - that Tim is right!

See Hal Finney's post of about this time.  It turns out that the
other Members of Parliament do have to cooperate.

Sorry about that.

Peter Hendrickson
ph@netcom.com

At 6:45 PM -0800 11/17/96, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
>At 6:32 PM 11/17/1996, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
>>At 1:23 PM 11/17/1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
>>>At 11:43 AM -0800 11/17/96, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
>>> For the specific example Peter cites, of a member of Parliament who doesn't
>>> like the possibility of anonymity....well, he wouldn't be part of the
>>> DC-Net would he? Generally, there are no cryptographic solutions that will
>>> encompass the case where some member wants to speak anonymously, but no one
>>> else does. If a message originates from "someone in Parliament," but only
>>> one member of Parliament is set up to speak anonymously, then of course by
>>> simple elimination he is the speaker. As before, this is beyond any
>>> cryptographic solution.
>
>> It turns out - amazingly enough - that this is not true!
>
>It turns out - not so amazingly - that Tim is right!
>
>See Hal Finney's post of about this time.  It turns out that the
>other Members of Parliament do have to cooperate.
>
>Sorry about that.

My response to your first message just was being sent as I was receiving
this one.

Glad to know my intuitions were sound.

--Tim



"The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM
that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology."
[NYT, 1996-10-02]
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."