On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, John Kelsey wrote:
but there doesn't seem to be a clean process for determining how
skilled an attacker needs to be to, say, scan my finger once, and
produce either a fake finger or a machine for projecting a fake
fingerprint into the reader.
.. or a replacement reader
JAT wrote...
Basically, we're a bunch of closet fascists.
and
Um, I'm sorry - maybe you hadn't heard yet: that old piece of paper was
superceded on 11 Sep 01, when everything changed.
I think that's the day we came out of the closet.
Read, Radio Free Albemuth by P.K. Dick and you'll get the
Why don't Americans honour security and privacy higher?
Look at this page
http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/depts/police/prostitution_photos_current.ht
ml
Which is from a police department!
http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/depts/police/
If we look at the spirit of this quote I don't see how it is ok to
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Why don't Americans honour security and privacy higher?
Good question.
Basically, we're a bunch of closet fascists.
Look at this page
http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/depts/police/prostitution_photos_current.ht
ml
Hey,
Tinklenberg, Chi
--
On 12 Oct 2004 at 11:28, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
The latest court documents to be unsealed by Judge Frederick
Motz in Burst.com's suit against Microsoft paint a picture of
Microsoft document handling procedures which destroyed the
very emails that were likely to be most relevant to several
--
On 12 Oct 2004 at 10:52, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
A long time ago I came to the conclusion that the closer we
get to transaction instantaneity, the less counterparty
identity matters at all. That is, the fastest transaction we
can think of is a cryptographically secure glop of bits that
is
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:27:20 -0700, James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Two problems:
Kinda...
1. Instantaneous and complete transfer is irrevocable, thus
attractive to ten million phishing spammers, virus witers etc.
Instantaneous and complete transfer of cash to a mugger, burglar,
