4 ms·
So I watched his talk and I'm pretty confused -- it felt like a rehash of a lot of well-understood stuff (mix nets, which IMO are awesome and underutilized, MPC
by rdl 11y ago
So I watched his talk and I'm pretty confused -- it felt like a rehash of a lot of well-understood stuff (mix nets, which IMO are awesome and underutilized, MPC, etc.), but it was an odd mix of very high level and very low level details. I haven't read either the cMix or PrivaTegrity papers yet.
However, even if this is a fatally flawed system as a whole, it's entirely possible there is some interesting research, maybe even useful tools here.
It is an interesting idea, being able to protocol-level enforcement of various types of surveillance. Of course, if the level you choose is "none", then you don't need the complexity of the enforcement mechanism.
- ycmbntrthrwaway 11y agoCan you summarize how is it different from Herbivore, Dissent, Riposte and Vuvuzela? Well, especially Riposte, as it is a system where users post their messages via N servers out of which K servers should be trusted. It seems like Riposte can be easily adopted for this use case. Operators can decide to de-anonymize messages and consensus of any K operators is enough.
- rdl 11y agoI was discussing with someone (nim?) about wanting to set up all of these systems, analyze, and write a survey paper about their properties (Desired, achieved) and about the blank spots needed. I don't really have time for this, though, although it would be fun.