From: Amara Graps (amara@amara.com)
Date: Thu Jul 18 2002 - 00:53:22 MDT
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 10:10:46AM -0400, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> In rigorous security analysis, it turns out that trust is a bad thing.
> Trust only occurs when someone is unable to verify something or to
> control something. Then you are in a position to have to "trust"
> someone or something to not be deceptive. Stronger security occurs when
> trust is unnecessary and the integrity of a claim is demonstrated in
> some way. If all parties can separately verify the integrity of
> information, they can assure themselves of its worthiness without having
> to trust anyone. For example, counting your change is a better check of
> a transaction than reputation and trust of the cashier.
What about deleting the change-counting part and giving/showing a
handful of coins to the cashier for her/him to extract the proper amount?
Here is a situation I've seen many dozens of times in the past months in
different countries with the new euro currency. It's a level of trust I
have not seen before and I don't think that this situation happens only
in the person's local neighborhood shop.
Amara
-- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara@amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Whatever you are, be a good one." --Abraham Lincoln
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:32 MST