[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [freehaven-dev] rfc: defining anonymity

On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Michael J. Freedman wrote:

> Oooh....sounds like some more things should be written into threat.tex.
> Dave, you really might want to start adding your posts to freehaven-dev
> into that source.  It shouldn't take all that long, and would greatly
> centralize some descriptions / discussions.

Yes, you're right. I've moved in that direction by adding the model.tex,
but there's more to do . It always takes longer than I think it will,
since I want everything to flow together nicely...

> >bits. [is that a strong enough requirement? is that too strong?]
> a la "Never underestimate people's own stupidity?"
> I think this is quite beyond the scope of our analysis...

I think it is too, but it needs to be mentioned. "Of course the system
isn't secure if you use it *that* way" is something which you want to hear
_before_ you use the system *that* way. Plus since most people don't think
about what it means to be anonymous that often, I think that there isn't
really a good intuition for what will and what won't break anonymity...all
of which means that the way the system might be broken via misuse needs
to be investigated in great detail.