5 ms·
There should not be a mechanism for that. China mastered such mechanisms. We should rather optimize for not having that kind of points of failure.
by comboy 8y ago
There should not be a mechanism for that. China mastered such mechanisms. We should rather optimize for not having that kind of points of failure.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- burkemw3 8y agoIn addition, optimize for dealing with those situations: secret rotation plans
- pjc50 8y ago"Please change the name of your first pet, the school you went to, and any distinguishing ratios on your body"
- vageli 8y agoPeople actually fill those questions in with real info? Those types of questions are easily compromised with social media.
- crtasm 8y agoTiddles. Ridgemont High. Golden.
- newscracker 8y agoThat's a funny take! At least the first two look like they need time machines, which would circumvent the solutions for the main issue in question here.
- 0xcde4c3db 8y agoThere's nothing inherently wrong with an opt-in coordination mechanism. It makes sense that if I trust someone to make a blacklist, I can have my node refer to that list. The problem is when an organization threatens you for "publishing" the wrong thing. That's a legal or social problem, not a technical one, and such organizations typically don't care in the slightest about how convenient it is for you to comply with their demands. If there's no blacklist mechanism, they're more than happy to demand that you shut down your node altogether.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- alkonaut 8y agoI think of the two evils, the possobility of censorship or mistakes being eternal, I think I prefer the former. For the same reason I find it comforting that an old fashioned bank transfer can be corrected if I transfer money and make a mistake writing the account number. Mutable history is a powerful feature.
- comboy 8y agoThis feature is an illusion though. Mallory still can save anything that appears online for a second and so can you.
- alkonaut 8y agoSure. But if I e.g. accidentally uploaded something sensitive to GitHub (that can’t simply be changed to a new secret), I’d certainly delete it in a hurry, rather than shrug and say ”oh well It’s on the someone has already copied it so I’ll leave it”.
- vageli 8y agoBut in that case, are you saying you _wouldn't_ immediately change the credential you committed? Sure, the possibility of an adversary forking your repo after that commit but before your revision is small, but still exists. Once a secret is exposed to the internet, it should be considered public and rotated. In this case mutability/immutability is moot though likely there are applications for other, non-credential secrets that are not so easily rotated (like your home address or something).
- alkonaut 8y agoYes a changeable credential you just change, but say the medical records of all staff your entire company or similar.
- acdha 8y agoThat’s technically correct but in practice it’s about as accurate as, say, assuming that you shouldn’t own anything expensive because it’s possible for anything to be stolen. In real life, there are not billions of Mallorys watching your stuff constantly. Most people are decent and most of the others are deterred by laws, and the number of people who are willing to help abusers is relatively small. Just using some real-life examples, think about doxxing or revenge porn. It’s technically true that this data cannot provably be removed from the internet but in practice most people didn’t save it and the ones who did became a lot more covert once the legal system caught up, which means that in practice far fewer people see it. The initial damage may have been done but that doesn’t mean we should give up and do nothing because there isn’t a theoretically-perfect option.
- lucb1e 8y agoDownvote because I think the nationalistic "us vs them" is uncalled for. Let's not make it about country politics when the topic isn't already politics.