(And I get flamed by multiple people because I put in the quote and managed to hit send before adding the commentary. Maybe one of these days I'll learn not to try to mix replying to e-mail and dealing with vendor engineers doing a tape library expansion at the same time. :) Oh well, equivalent text follows as a reply to Scott...)
On Tue, 17 May 2011 16:05:11 PDT, Scott Weeks said: > It doesn't have to be that way. We can design these things any way we want. True. The question is whether we get to *deploy* said designs. > Why give the corpment (corporate/government contraction) an easy time at it? > Just like the early days, security and privacy do not seem to be in folk's > mind > when things are being designed. But more importantly, who has more/better lobbyists, you or the people who want things like COICA and ACTA? You're going to have to fix *that* problem before trying to address it at the protocol level will do any real, lasting good. Either that or we need a *lot* more TOR relays (while those are still legal). Oh, and an article that coincidentally popped up since I hit 'send' on the previous mail: http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/05/anonymize-data-limits.html Designing things to evade good data mining is a *lot* harder than it looks.
pgpREhdu7wqDC.pgp
Description: PGP signature