161–168 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not concerned if the NSA knows my SSN.
Nothing to hide, I see. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What type of threat model is this? Even standard unencrypted email is largely opportunisticly encrypted these days. Security properties of that is "debatable", but a fax isn't encrypted at all...
I think it's about the difference between being able to expect a certain level of service or not; regardless of what the actual average is. And about the worst-case scenario and the perception for me of a point-to-point architecture. If I email something, then if it's "largely" encrypted, that is no consolation if that doesn't hold. I'd feel it was on me for doing it. On the other hand, if I fax something, and someon…
MITM the connection - even ignoring opportunistic encryption, almost certainly easier to physically witetap some random office than it is to wiretap the internet connection between google's data center and microsoft's data center (picked as two random big email providers)
Insider at destination: your email account has a password and audit logs. Fax machines sit in the middle of a room. Usually anyone can just walk over
Insider at source: most people have their own computer/email account set up. Going to some sketchy shop with a public fax machine that any malicious party could have secretly modified is much worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have done this and am thankful for it. I have gone so far as to have a digital copy of my analogue signature to drag-drop into an electronic document. And this has been accepted as legal. Courtroom legal. IRS legal. "Don't fuck with this" type of legal. I hope this continues into the future.
> digital copy of my analogue signature to drag-drop into an electronic document This will not work in Europe. You need proper public-key cryptosigning here. That was what I meant when I wrote "legally admissible digital signature". What you wrote is called "digitised signature" here, and would only be useful as a decorative sign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> digital copy of my analogue signature to drag-drop into an electronic document This will not work in Europe. You need proper public-key cryptosigning here. That was what I meant when I wrote "legally admissible digital signature". What you wrote is called "digitised signature" here, and would only be useful as a decorative sign.
What type of middleman blesses a "legally admissible digital signature"? This sounds like the same, if not a similar, rabbit hole folks in the US conjure up against voting machines.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_signature to start.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What type of middleman blesses a "legally admissible digital signature"? This sounds like the same, if not a similar, rabbit hole folks in the US conjure up against voting machines.
You bless maths, not the middlemen in digital signatures. Electronic signature infrastructures are usually based on strong public key infrastructures, which I call them legally admissible digital signatures. The primary problem with electronic voting is no possible enforcement of no coercive force rule, not tallying security. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_signature to start.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What type of middleman blesses a "legally admissible digital signature"? This sounds like the same, if not a similar, rabbit hole folks in the US conjure up against voting machines.
You bless maths, not the middlemen in digital signatures. Electronic signature infrastructures are usually based on strong public key infrastructures, which I call them legally admissible digital signatures. The primary problem with electronic voting is no possible enforcement of no coercive force rule, not tallying security. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_signature to start.
How is this not "blessed by maths" as not in the previous problem?
Someone somewhere has to bless something, be it a valid vote or a valid digital signature. If there is a "Pope" for one, there should be a "Pope" for the other. Medical, government, religious ... someone somewhere must have a magic "I Bless This" magic wand and all henceforth below shall must be valid.
Why is the branch of "digital signature" considered "good" in this respect but "voting" not? "Medical" not"?
I viciously hate to say the term, yet ... this seems so "tri-cameral" ... and in terms of schizophrenia of illogic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm waiting for faxing to come back like cassettes: Artists draw pictures and robodial a secret fan list (through a POTS modem and some 90s software) of fax machines where insiders can get exclusive limited physical copies of the art and the copies with the earliest timestamps become the most valued. People will just be sitting around their house and they hear the fax machine starting to unexpectedly print something…
You do it and I'll be the first subscriber, as long as i can afford it :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You bless maths, not the middlemen in digital signatures. Electronic signature infrastructures are usually based on strong public key infrastructures, which I call them legally admissible digital signatures. The primary problem with electronic voting is no possible enforcement of no coercive force rule, not tallying security. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_signature to start.
> The primary problem with electronic voting is no possible enforcement of no coercive force rule, not tallying security. How is this not "blessed by maths" as not in the previous problem? Someone somewhere has to bless something, be it a valid vote or a valid digital signature. If there is a "Pope" for one, there should be a "Pope" for the other. Medical, government, religious ... someone somewhere must have a magic…