[144343] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Activation protocol for tracking devices
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Santiago Aguiar)
Wed Mar 4 10:13:59 2009
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:32:00 -0200
From: Santiago Aguiar <santiago.aguiar@gmail.com>
To: David Wagner <daw@cs.berkeley.edu>
CC: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <200903040349.n243nFEo018602@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu>
David Wagner wrote:
> This does sound like it introduces novel risks. I would suggest that
> rather than spending too much energy on the cryptomath, it would make
> sense to focus energy on the systems issues and the security requirements.
>
Very interesting read. These topics are being discussed, but the
proposed solutions are basically 'policies' but no actual mechanisms to
enforce those policies are being defined. For example, privacy is not
really an issue because the owner can opt to deactivate the service.
How? By sending a signed letter to the SO or DENATRAN who then will
dutifully disable the device.
We'll see how things develop, but probably there will be more outcries
about this legislation once the deadline gets even closer and public
awareness rises....
--
Santiago
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
