[Cryptography] On Security Architecture, The Panopticon, And "The Law"

[Bill Frantz]

On 12/26/13 at 5:25 PM, arxlight at arx.li (arxlight) wrote:

>At least to my way of thinking one of the foremost issues that mucks the
>entire schema up is the concept of "knowing exposure" of data that might
>otherwise be shrouded in the "expectation of privacy."

When the US supreme court decided that a woman had no 
"expectation of privacy" for what went on under her skirts, I 
knew privacy was dead. I then thought about what my grandmother 
would say, but didn't want be exposed to something so icy.


When I translated the German I was literally laughing out loud:
>You know what, fuck you and your
>coalition for signing off on Teufelsberg's funding every year).
>...
>One does not, after all, brag about liaisons with illicit lovers to
>third parties if one expects such details to be kept "unter vier Augen."


The bigest problem I can see with leaving the third parties out 
is that is -- where's the revenue model that provides an 
economic incentive to drive adoption? Even when third parties 
start out with a privacy goal, they provide a place to pry as 
seen by RIM's and Skype's dance with the national security 
agencies. There needs to be a revenue model, perhaps a 
distributed revenue model like Bitcoin's enabling of low cost 
electronic monitory exchange and the opportunity to make money 
by minting.

General purpose hardware manufacturers are as rare as Unicorns, 
making them a logical target for black coercion. A possible 
solution to hardware compromise is to run crypto code through 
one or more layers of interpretation, so it will be hard for the 
hardware to detect what computations are being performed.

Cheers - Bill

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz        | Privacy is dead, get over    | Periwinkle
(408)356-8506      | it.                          | 16345 
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com |              - Scott McNealy | Los Gatos, 
CA 95032