Re: [freehaven-dev] rfc: defining anonymity

[dmolnar@belegost.mit.edu]

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. 

Thanks, 
-David