At 8:36 AM +0100 on 10/28/02, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> If my traffic is remixed the signature is not linkable to a point of
> origin. The signature emitted is not rich, and can be scrambled in
> principle.
Yes, but the behavior of the signature, the things it does, is biometric.
You can't have pers
At 8:38 PM +0100 on 10/27/02, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> The only way to defeat advanced biometrics is to not be physically present
> or to use anonymized telepresence devices.
Oddly enough, your behavior on the net, even the behavior of a given
signature in cypherspace, is biometric, as well.
Cheers
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> Oddly enough, your behavior on the net, even the behavior of a given
> signature in cypherspace, is biometric, as well.
If my traffic is remixed the signature is not linkable to a point of
origin. The signature emitted is not rich, and can be scramble
[Hmm. lne.com spam-blocked me on the first attempt.
Given the identity of the research group, I forgot to add the obvious
"The computer says he's a rambling wreck from Georgia Tech."
]
At 01:36 AM 10/27/2002 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>See also:
>http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38
> There are potential medical uses of this sort of technology -
> enough computer abusers and other desk-job workers with bad backs
> or similar health problems that could benefit from analyzing how they walk,
> but obviously Darpa's not going to find that. Perhaps we can get
There are expensive,
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Bill Stewart wrote:
> Sigh. If people are going to beat up on BrinWorld, at least they
> should get it right. Brin's Transparent Society stuff makes two points
> - Cameras, networks and similar technology are going to keep getting cheaper,
> so you're going to lose
[Sorry about any duplicated - lne.com spam-blocked me the first time.]
At 01:34 PM 10/27/2002 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>Advent of another technology wide deployment of which we must delay as
>long as possible. ...
>Unfortunately, brinistas welcome this development because they idiotically
>assume
nt is basically
irreversible. Catch it before it's too late.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 01:36:42 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FC: Privacy villain of the week: DARPA's gait surveillance tech
See also:
htt
At 01:34 PM 10/27/02 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> (Try [to] rewire parts of CNS in control of your motorics).
Actually, injuring yourself is a good way to do this. You'll screw up
the timing differences (albeit not the geometry) royally. We call
this a limp.
If you're interested in gait percepti
> No technical solution will work in absence of laws making it legal.
Sanity villain statement of the month.
=
end
(of original message)
Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows:
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Morlock Elloi wrote:
> > No technical solution will work in absence of laws making it legal.
>
> Sanity villain statement of the month.
The only way to defeat advanced biometrics is to not be physically present
or to use anonymized telepresence devices. Because the latter i
11 matches
Mail list logo
