[18128] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: solving the wrong problem
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Carosone)
Tue Aug 9 12:16:06 2005
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 18:13:18 +1000
From: Daniel Carosone <dan@geek.com.au>
To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Cc: adam@homeport.org, jsd@av8n.com, cryptography@metzdowd.com,
perry@piermont.com
Mail-Followup-To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>,
adam@homeport.org, jsd@av8n.com, cryptography@metzdowd.com,
perry@piermont.com
In-Reply-To: <E1E27IY-0001s7-00@medusa01.cs.auckland.ac.nz>
--bEAlbH1hodbw2omC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:04:10AM +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> That sounds a bit like "unicorn insurance"
> [..]
> However, this is slightly different from what Perry was suggesting.
> There seem to be at least four subclasses of problem here:
>=20
> 1. "???" : A solution based on a misunderstanding of what the real proble=
m is.
>=20
> 2. "Unicorn insurance": A solution to a nonexistent problem.
>=20
> 3. "???": A solution to a problem created artificially in order to justif=
y its
> solution (or at least to justify publication of an academic paper
> containing a solution).
>=20
> 4. "PKI": A solution in search of a problem.
Nice list, and terms for the remaining ??? cases would be nice, but
I'm not sure that any of these captures one essential aspect of the
problem Perry mentioned, at least as I see it.
One of the nice aspects of the "snake oil" description is the
implications it has about the dodgy seller, rather than the product.
To my view, much of the Quantum Cryptography (et al) discussion has
this aspect: potentially very cool and useful technology in other
circumstances, but being sold into a market not because they
particularly need it, but just because that's where the money is.
Certainly, that's the aspect I find most objectionable, and thus
deserving of a derogatory term, rather than just general frustration
at naive user stupidity.
None of the terms proposed so far capture this aspect. The specific
example given doesn't quite fit anywhere on your list. It's somewhere
between #3 and #4; perhaps it's a #4 with a dodgy salesman trying to
push it as a #3 until a better problem is found for it to solve?
I was going to suggest "porpoise oil" (from "not fit-for-purpose"),
but how about "unicorn oil" - something that may well have some
uncertain magical properties, but still sold under false pretenses,
and not really going to cure your ills?
--
Dan.
--bEAlbH1hodbw2omC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (NetBSD)
iD8DBQFC+GWeEAVxvV4N66cRAh2XAJ9lp2gdpc2W3mMpVMnzYMu5I5gJ5gCg6RrM
euXKlK0IphaCEZGchBB36VA=
=quUc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--bEAlbH1hodbw2omC--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
