Re: On the orthogonality of anonymity to current market demand
James A. Donald writes: Further, genuinely secure systems are now becoming available, notably Symbian. What does it mean for Symbian to be genuinely secure? How was this determined and achieved? -- http://www.eff.org/about/staff/#chris_palmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: On the orthogonality of anonymity to current market demand
Chris Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: James A. Donald writes: Further, genuinely secure systems are now becoming available, notably Symbian. What does it mean for Symbian to be genuinely secure? How was this determined and achieved? By executive fiat. Peter.
Re: On the orthogonality of anonymity to current market demand
James A. Donald writes: Further, genuinely secure systems are now becoming available, notably Symbian. Chris Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] What does it mean for Symbian to be genuinely secure? How was this determined and achieved? There is no official definition of genuinely secure, and it is my judgment that Symbian is unlikely to suffer the worm, virus and trojan problems to the extent that has plagued other systems.
Re: On the orthogonality of anonymity to current market demand
hi ( 05.10.26 09:17 -0700 ) James A. Donald: While many people are rightly concerned that DRM will ultimately mean that the big corporation, and thus the state, has root access to their computers and the owner does not, it also means that trojans, viruses, and malware does not. do you really think this is true? doesn't microsoft windows prove that remote control of computers only leads to compromise? [especially in our heavily networked world] and doesn't history show that big corporations are only interested in revenue- so that if they get revenue by forcing you to pay them fees for 'upkeep' of your digital credentials to keep your computer working they are going to do that. the problems 'solved' by DRM can also be solved by moving to an operating system where you have control of it, instead of an operating system filled with hooks so other people can control your computer. and that operating system is freely available ... -- \js oblique strategy: don't be frightened of cliches
Re: On the orthogonality of anonymity to current market demand
At 10:22 AM -0500 10/31/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and doesn't history show that big corporations are only interested in revenue One should hope so. ;-) Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: On the orthogonality of anonymity to current market demand
From: R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Oct 25, 2005 8:34 AM To: cryptography@metzdowd.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: On the orthogonality of anonymity to current market demand .. That is to say, your analysis conflicts with the whole trend towards T-0 trading, execution, clearing and settlement in the capital markets, and, frankly, with all payment in general as it gets increasingly granular and automated in nature. The faster you can trade or transact business with the surety that the asset in question is now irrevocably yours, the more trades and transactions you can do, which benefits not only the individual trader but markets as a whole. The prerequisite for all this is that when the asset changes hands, it's very nearly certain that this was the intention of the asset's previous owner. My point isn't to express my love for book-entry payment systems. There's plenty to hate about them. But if the alternative is an anonymous, irreversible payment system whose control lies in software running alongside three pieces of spyware on my Windows box, they probably still win for most people. Even bad payment systems are better than ones that let you have everything in your wallet stolen by a single attack. .. However anonymous irrevocability might offend one's senses and cause one to imagine the imminent heat-death of the financial universe (see Gibbon, below... :-)), I think that technology will instead step up to the challenge and become more secure as a result. What's with the heat-death nonsense? Physical bearer instruments imply stout locks and vaults and alarm systems and armed guards and all the rest, all the way down to infrastructure like police forces and armies (private or public) to avoid having the biggest gang end up owning all the gold. Electronic bearer instruments imply the same kinds of things, and the infrastructure for that isn't in place. It's like telling people to store their net worth in their homes, in gold. That can work, but you probably can't leave the cheapest lock sold at Home Depot on your front door and stick the gold coins in the same drawer where you used to keep your checkbook. And, since internet bearer transactions are, by their very design, more secure on public networks than book-entry transactions are in encrypted tunnels on private networks, they could even be said to be secure *in spite* of the fact that they're anonymous; that -- as it ever was in cryptography -- business can be transacted between two parties even though they don't know, or trust, each other. Why do you say internet bearer transactions are more secure? I can see more efficient, but why more secure? It looks to me like both kinds of payment system are susceptible to the same broad classes of attacks (bank misbehavior (for a short time), someone finding a software bug, someone breaking a crypto algorithm or protocol). What makes one more secure than the other? .. Cheers, RAH --John Kelsey
Re: On the orthogonality of anonymity to current market demand
-- John Kelsey What's with the heat-death nonsense? Physical bearer instruments imply stout locks and vaults and alarm systems and armed guards and all the rest, all the way down to infrastructure like police forces and armies (private or public) to avoid having the biggest gang end up owning all the gold. Electronic bearer instruments imply the same kinds of things, and the infrastructure for that isn't in place. It's like telling people to store their net worth in their homes, in gold. That can work, but you probably can't leave the cheapest lock sold at Home Depot on your front door and stick the gold coins in the same drawer where you used to keep your checkbook. Some of us get spyware more than others. Further, genuinely secure systems are now becoming available, notably Symbian. While many people are rightly concerned that DRM will ultimately mean that the big corporation, and thus the state, has root access to their computers and the owner does not, it also means that trojans, viruses, and malware does not. DRM enables secure signing of transactions, and secure storage of blinded valuable secrets, since DRM binds the data to the software, and provides a secure channel to the user. So secrets representing ID, and secrets representing value, can only be manipulated by the software that is supposed to be manipulating it. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 3CepcQ59MYKAZTizEycP1vkZBbexwbyiobaC/bXS 44hfxMF4PBKXmc5uavnegOFFCMtNwDmpIMxLBcyI3
