Re: unlinkability

Nathan wrote:
> Henry Story wrote:
>> On 6 Oct 2012, at 11:39, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 6 October 2012 11:25, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>>>>> (1) I think solves the unlinkability problem
>>>> Can you explain what the unlinkeability problem is? Or for who it is 
>>>> a problem?
>>>>
>>>> 4.  Unlinkability
>>>>
>>>>    Definition:  Unlinkability of two or more Items Of Interest (e.g.,
>>>>       subjects, messages, actions, ...) from an attacker's perspective
>>>>       means that within a particular set of information, the attacker
>>>>       cannot distinguish whether these IOIs are related or not (with a
>>>>       high enough degree of probability to be useful).
>>>>
>>>> This is something Harry brought up.
>>> Can you explain why it is problematic. It is not because he brought 
>>> it up
>>> that it is problematic right? Or is he someone who sets the standards
>>> of what is or is not problematic? Through what authority?
>>>
>>> Harry stressed that this was a key consideration to him.  As an 
>>> influential member of the social web (he was chair of the W3C Social 
>>> Web XG), I would consider his opinions important.  His complain was 
>>> that he raised this before, and that the webid group did not look at it.
>>
>> But you have not summarised in your own words what his complaint is. 
>> So how do you know we did not answer it?
> 
> The quote in context may help:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hansen-privacy-terminology-03#section-4
> 

and framed within the more specific context of 
http://www.w2spconf.com/2012/papers/w2sp12-final6.pdf

Received on Saturday, 6 October 2012 10:46:20 UTC