Re: Data Havens..A consumer perspective

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>]

On Thu, 12 Jan 1995, Censored Girls Anonymous wrote:

> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 02:32:06 -0600 (CST)
> From: Censored Girls Anonymous <carolb@barton.spring.com>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Data Havens..A consumer perspective
> 
> 
> 1. You have what I want or need.

As far as what...?  Data already in the haven?  Storage capacity?  Speed 
of link?

> 2. In order for me to let you store it, I will give it to you
>    anyway you wish to get it.

Does this include on old style magnetic reel to reel?  Clearly there has 
to be some simplicity of submission.  I would further submit than many 
"consumers" will not want to store plaintext data, and thus "any way you 
wish to get it." quickly becomes unacceptable.

> 3. I will let you do anything to the data you wish, so long as I  
>    get it back intact.

Again, does this include storing it in a /pub/ dir on an ftp site in 
plaintext?  No, there must be a clear stated policy of the site 
operator's method of storage.

> 4. It is no concern (only idle curiosity maybe) where the data is parked.

This ignores jurisdictional concerns that may have significant, even 
severe impact.

> 5. I would expect to pay money for the safekeeping of my data.

What kind of money?  Digital postage?  New currency?  DM? $?
This toois s is a simplistic representation of the real concern.

> 6. I would expect the longer you hold the data, the more it will cost.

I assume you mean day to day cost, not rates by data age?
Though this brings up a interesting point, what would be the incentives 
served and created by charging on a phase in scale?  i.e., what would be 
the result if a DH were to charge $ .05 a day for data that had been in 
the DH for over a month, and $ .09 a day for data over a year?  It would 
at the very least, increase traffic as old data was taken out and put 
back in to avoid the steped up "latency" charge.  If all the data was 
encrypted, would this help deter traffic analysis by imposing 
"productless" transactions resulting in no net change in the DH's holdings?

Hmmmmm.

> 7. The only thing I am counting on is the data's timely retrieval.

And not its ability to be directed to specific parties, rather than the 
public at large?  And not its ability to avoid traffic analysis?  And not 
its ability to be multi or non-jurisdictonal?

> 8. Welcome to the world of data "coatchecking".

I've lost several coats this way.

> Why make it more complex than this?

Why insist on this simplicity.  Why not store it on your own machine if 
these are your only requirements?

> From the moment the data leaves their hands, until I return it,
> they have no right, nor I no obligation, to divulge anything about it.
> For they already would know, it would take a few minutes to retrieve it.

This was to be from a consumers's prespective I thought.  In any event, 
this ignores the possibility of court ordered disclosure, availability to 
third and fourth parties, and traffic analysis concerns.

> For whether it's encrypted to the nth degree, or parked in a plain brown
> wrapper in a massive unix box somewhere, as long as I the haven manager,
> return the data in a safe, timely, uncorrupted manner, I've done my duty.

What you are talking about has little if anything to do with "Data 
Havens" you're just selling storage space.

> Carol Anne


073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!