On 10/18/12 11:34 AM, Ben Laurie wrote: > On 9 October 2012 14:19, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: >> Still in my conversations I have found that many people in security spaces >> just don't seem to be able to put the issues in context, and can get sidetracked >> into not wanting any linkability at all. Not sure how to fix that. > You persist in missing the point, which is why you can't fix it. The > point is that we want unlinkability to be possible. Protocols that do > not permit it or make it difficult are problematic. I have certainly > never said that you should always be unlinked, that would be stupid > (in fact, I once wrote a paper about how unpleasant it would be). > > As I once wrote, anonymity should be the substrate. Once you have > that, you can the build on it to be linked when you choose to be, and > not linked when you choose not to be. If it is not the substrate, then > you do not have this choice. > > > > Do you have example of what you describe? By that question I mean: implicit anonymity as a functional substrate of some realm that we experience today? -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2012 15:42:02 UTC