2 ms·
The value lies in sometimes demonstrating a channel is insecure. It won't always do so. Obviously the converse--proving a channel is secure--is much harder. I
by imglorp 9y ago
The value lies in sometimes demonstrating a channel is insecure. It won't always do so. Obviously the converse--proving a channel is secure--is much harder.
I don't think it has commercial value really. But for social awareness, showing that mail, or notes, or storage providers aren't always as private as you'd hope, that's where the value is.
- cottsak 9y agoBut it demonstrates nothing if no one clicks. The channel may be insecure, compromised and no one knows - not the author or the parties who are supposed to have the secrets. I see what he's trying to do, but this isn't the way I don't think. Mathematical proofs that verify that a payload is observed, opened, or accessed work. They are deterministic. They are also way more complex. I think this is trying to solve a problem in a simple way but it's still just as nondeterministic as without this solution IMO.
- imglorp 9y agoAbsolutely. But if you have the choice between a) not knowing 100 pct of the time, and b) knowing for certain it's not private X pct of the time, for unknown X probably not 0, you'd want b. You will have more information by trying.