I wasn't saying that anonymity is a binary but the user's behavior. Either he is doing the best possible thing to be anonymous or he isn't! See what I wrote! If he isn't then we don't care about the reason. He forgot, sloppiness, etc Why not help him and force him to do the best possible thing to be anonymous?
Understand now what I am trying to say? > Security is NOT binary, it is a process, and it is a gradient. We only > desire the illusion of it being binary. There is compromise in every > design, take tor for example using 128bit crypto because it is pretty > secure and fast enough to encrypt on the fly. I'm sure there are > people that wish it was doing 512bit elliptic curve or some other > thing out there. > > However, it is possible we could come up with some secure-only mode > which locks out most features, virtually all the plugins and > functionality, and puts the user in a rigid framework in order to give > a little more security and a stronger impression of anonymity. Of > course, this makes it a significantly unpleasant experience and one > might as well use lynx at that point. > > Regards, > Arrakis > > >> As I said it is possible, but when you treat the user like a child it > >> is going to be an issue to get them to keep using it. > > > Why? Surfing anonymously is a binary. Either 1) everything is set > > perfectly to be secure and anonymous or 2) it is not. > > There are two types of Tor users. Tor literate and Tor illiterate users. > > The thing that both have in common is that they could accidentally > > enable scripting or forget to turn in off. Both types would be greatful > > for a mechanism that would force them to turn things off and not allow > > them to use Tor otherwise. > > > After all they can choose to use Tor or not. Be anonymous or not be > > anonymous. There is nothing third "state". Nobody would feel "being > > treated as a child". > > -- > > JT > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- JT [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.
