andrel wrote:
> The only interesting way you could use such a technique to make your 
> world a little safer might be to use it to disconnect a group of trusted 
>  machines from the rest of the net. Then again, such techniques might 
> not be completely new.

I think you want exactly the opposite of anonymity-enforcement for that.

>>> See above, anyone could provide that 'service' to youtube.
>>
>> Right. But that person can then get sued if what they're doing is 
>> illegal.
> 
> That would only be illegal if using youtube implies signing an EULA that 
> you won't carry the stream over to a network using a non IP-protocol. 
> Which I doubt is the case.

Right. Especially since this is, technically, an IP protocol. :)

>>> My 'guess' is that it would be used for anything that is not allowed 
>>> in the day world and little else. 
>>
>> Quite possibly, yes. On the other hand, it may help to reduce the 
>> amount of what is "not allowed in the day world." :-)
> 
> Not actually, only visibly. Pr0n surfing will continue, but it won't 
> show up on your stats at the ISP anymore. Bandwidth is taken anyway.

Re-reading my sentence, I have no idea what I was thinking when I wrote 
that. Nevermind.

>> Yes, I suppose if you have too many layers, figuring out where leaks 
>> are can be problematic.
>>
> I am more concerned about people with access to privacy information and 
> no knowledge of what the consequences could be. Using a tunnel is OK, 
> doing it for vital information on a machine that is connected to the 
> internet without adequate malware protection or firewall, is not OK.

Sure. And what you probably really want is mandatory access controls. 
Any program that opens for reading a file with patient information is 
not allowed to write to any program that you (i.e., the sys admin / 
"security officer") haven't vetted.  Difficult to enforce when it's not 
built into the system, tho.


-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message