[Cryptography] phishing, was Encryption opinion
mitch at niftyegg.com
Wed Sep 10 14:54:33 EDT 2014
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 7:21 PM, ianG <iang at iang.org> wrote:
> On 9/09/2014 16:50 pm, Jerry Leichter wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 2014, at 11:45 PM, John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
> >>> If carriers and others are permitted to inject anything the framework
> >>> for MITM attacks is established and made legal.
> > I've always found this one complicated. If done without the end user's
> permission, it's an issue. But there are people who believe it's bad even
> *with* the end-user's permission - for reasons I find hard to follow.
> Just from an opinionated pov: If it is done through a click-thru
> licence, then it's not really done with the end user's permission, only
> with their trust that the service won't screw them.
Click through and transport provider modification of content
does not address the Copyright issue and it also ignores
the source content providers rights.
In a connection between Me and Macy's it is clear that
my click through does not cover the rights that Macy's
has in the communication. Nor does it cover the copyright
content that Macy's has obtained permi$$ion to use.
Macy's ----->TransportA ---> TransportB ----> Me
????????? Transport? <--- click-permission.
but do I have the right to assign editorial rights to
Macy's content? I suspect not.... And I am also not
assigning a right in an informed way because I never
see the original.
We are used to seeing content on TV that has been edited
for content, formatted to fit and edited for time allotted. This was
done at the head end and not in the middle by the transport.
Litigation way back when made this an interesting topic
in the courts that many forget.
T o m M i t c h e l l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cryptography