HIDDEN-USER

[Alexander Dupuy <[e-mail]>]

> Ted uses the word ``privacy'' when he speaks about anonymity. Privacy is
> a legal right; anonymity is not. Before you give Ted your emotional
> support simply because he says the magic word ``privacy,'' consider what
> he's really defending.

Although I don't completely agree with the rest of Dan's argument on what a
violation of privacy is, I do think this distinction is useful and important.
It seems to me that HIDDEN-USER provides anonymity, which is not necessary (or
in my opionion, desirable) while the encrypted OTHER token mechanism provides
privacy.

Is there anyone out there who still feels strongly that complete anonymity is
ever necessary?  If not, I propose that HIDDEN-USER be dropped from the
draft.

> He claims that a user connecting to an FTP server
> has the right to ``privacy''---but it's not a violation of privacy for
> the FTP server to know who the user is! Privacy in this case means that
> *others* can't find out who's communicating.

Also, I want to second the suggestion which somebody made, that a standard
ASCII notation for 8-bit byte-strings be specified, so administrators can
easily exchange OTHER tokens or internationalized usernames.

@alex