| |||||||||||
authentication and anonymityauthentication and anonymityPosted Dec 1, 2003 16:38 UTC (Mon) by copsewood (subscriber, #199)Parent article: Fighting the worms of mass destruction (Economist) I think that the economics will lead to a networked world in which anyone may continue to be able to send low-level anonymous packets to anywhere, but no-one will respond to these except in response to requests for cheaply publishable content. All other application-level services will require user credentials. E.G. I would be happier to receive mail from someone who has demonstrated their message justifies 1 or more of my lifetime's estimated 2.6e9 seconds because they have: a. proved they can do a turing test assigned by my software agent or a trusted third party or b. (e.g. if they have special needs which make a. impossible) spent a few CPU minutes computing a hashcash in response to an automated challenge or c. have a private encryption key certificated based on a trust network I accept as an existing correspondent, or as someone introduced by a trusted party, or who can give reliable identification as a trustworthy individual, e.g. by offering a micropayment in exchange for my time spent in considering their message. Those who want to receive anonymous mail and don't want to waste a large fraction of their life reading spam will allow options a and b. However, when option c. becomes available, e.g. because it is also needed for higher value application layer i.e. networked money, whether many people will care enough to allow options a and/or b is an open question. Personally I would prefer a world in which options a. and b. still allow some anonymous communication. Other types of service, where a higher level of trust is needed, e.g. for secure shell access or the ability to update web content will require a higher level of authentication.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||