On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Tim May wrote: >The engineers of such SmartWallets will not give them more range than >the protocol needs. Extra range costs money. If Alice is expected to >insert her Smart Wallet into a receptacle (for security, if for nothing >else), initiating the protocol from several meters away is not in the >cards, so to speak.
Of course. But when you think of such applications as NID cards, it's likely range is within the spec. Yes, NID's are suspicious enough as they stand. No, people don't see this. Especially after services (or "services", it doesn't seem to matter much) start being bound to them -- this is the way Finland, Estonia and a couple of other countries are going, right now, with their electronic ID's. >If someone is arguing that such Smart Wallets will merely be passive >"announcers" of bank balances, this is just too naive to waste >discussion time on. Good luck selling such a system. Quite. Passive announcers of identity (or signers) with a secondary, "enabled" mode for actually signing something legally binding, on the other hand... Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
