Re: your mail Re: on anonymity, identity, reputation, and spoofing

[owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)]

 > From: m5@vail.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
 >>I also suspect that such attempts will flush out a whole raft problems and
 >>deficiencies along with  those who exploit such things.
 >>Hopefully new protocols and services can be developed which will minimise 
 >>vulnerability and maximise protection for bussiness assets while allowing
 >>us as much freedom as possible.
 
 > Why does this preclude continuation of net services as they exist
 > today?  You seem to feel that there can only be one mode of use for
 > network resources.  

No, I have quite a bit of experience in network management.
It certainly does not preclude continuation of current services.
I am trying to get people to expand their scope of thinking beyond
the mere technical capabilitys and into the practical realities
and political/social consequences of said technology.
I am not championing any particular set of these, i am championing
efforts to get us as much freedom and as much privacy as possible.
I find that the limited scope of individuals who are *living
in science fiction* scenarios to be kinda short sighted however.

 > If businesses want to use the net only under the
 > aegis of some authentication/credentialing scheme, fine!  That means I
 > may or may not choose too participate, or that I may choose to
 > participate as "myself" while still maintaining other digital
 > alter-egos for other purposes.

of course, I am not saying otherwise!


 >>Nobody really knows what those things will be,and it is sorta problematic to
 >  > make public laundrey lists of vulnerabilitys without some sort of idea
 >  > how to deal with cleaning up the mess. We are going to have to learn by 
 >  > example.
 
 > Why are you so stuck on the idea of "cleaning up a mess"?  The network
 > is a resource.  It can be used concurrently in lots of different ways.
 > You're free to start up your own set of authenticated services this
 > afternoon if you like.

I and some others are indeed working on just that.
I hope you are too.

Surely you are aware that many of the currently used network services 
are woefully insecure and prone to abuse?

 >  > My main point though is that eventually business will find decentralised
 >  > anarchic networks to be hostile territory, and will move on to less
 >  > vulnerable, more reliable networks where user authentication, and 
 >  > accountable security are provided.
 
 > Really?  So the presence of paying customers on the anarchic networks
 > won't be attractive?  We've had experience with lots of nasty problems
 > on the Internet already, and yet companies are all the time paying for
 > things like T1 channels for better service.

yup, all you say here is true.
but thats for now.
I am predicting that there will be trouble in paradise, and that
when it gets to the point where business is loosing more than they
are gaining there will be hell to pay.

You are under no obloigation to agree or to even pay any attention to me.
But I warn you now, I'm a terrible *I-told-you-so*.

 >  > It means an unfolding from two dimensional thinking ( text) to three
 >  > dimensional thinking ( virtual reality ).
 
 > I think you're selling text short, but that's another discussion.

I am trying to put it in perspective, that doesn't mean I discount its
value.

 >>perhaps you are unaware of some of the more starling things that are being 
 >>done with biofeedback interfaces.
 
 > I'm aware of plenty of hype and pipe-dreams, but little reality.
 > Sure, it'd be neat though.  What does it have to do with
 > authentication and accountability?

Since you seem to believe these things to be mere hype, I'll leave it
to your imagination.

 > I'm losing track of what this has to do with "need" for
 > accountability.
 
you manged to mix up a great deal of what I was saying.
I don't have time or energy to untangle it for you.

but put simply.. 
accountability will be driven by the desire for it.
Those who *need* it .. will have it..

LUX ./. owen