The remote attesation is the feature which is in the interests of
third parties.
I think if this feature were removed the worst of the issues the
complaints are around would go away because the remaining features
would be under the control of the user, and there would be no way for
third parties
David Wagner wrote:
To respond to your remark about bias: No, bringing up Document Revocation
Lists has nothing to do with bias. It is only right to seek to understand
the risks in advance. I don't understand why you seem to insinuate
that bringing up the topic of Document Revocation Lists
I asked Eric Murray, who knows something about TCPA, what he thought
of some of the more ridiculous claims in Ross Anderson's FAQ (like the
SNRL), and he didn't respond. I believe it is because he is unwilling
to publicly take a position in opposition to such a famous and respected
figure.
AARG! wrote:
I asked Eric Murray, who knows something about TCPA, what he thought
of some of the more ridiculous claims in Ross Anderson's FAQ (like the
SNRL), and he didn't respond. I believe it is because he is unwilling
to publicly take a position in opposition to such a famous and
AARG!Anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't agree with this distinction. If I use a smart card chip that
has a private key on it that won't come off, is that protecting me from
third parties, or vice versa? If I run a TCPA-enhanced Gnutella that
Who owns the key? If you bought the
