Re: PGP Lame question

On 4 Dec 2005 18:56:55 -0800, lynn@garlic.com wrote:

> one of the issues is to try and avoid polluting simple and
> straight-forward authentication operations with horribly privacy
> invasive heavy duty identification infrastructure. this also may stray
> into a completely different area from straight-foward authentication

As well it should since verification, a form of authentication, is polar
opposite from identification.

As to privacy issues, this simply is determined upon the implementation. if
it is a biometric on a readble, exposed RFID chip upon which chip is stored
identity information that, if compromised, could befall a person to ID
fraud, certainly.

If a biometric access card, all data on-card, authenticates the holder, and
the doors to the nuclear reserves open up, phuck privacy.

> .... not only enormously heavy duty and privacy invasive identification
> operations ... aka confusing authentication and identification ... but
> also confusing authentication (digital signatures) with reading,
> understanding, agreeing, approving, and/or authorizing (human
> signatures).
> part of this may be semantic confusion ... with both the term "digital
> sigatnure" and the term "human signature" containing the word
> "signature".
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subpubkey.html#signature

Agree on the semantics.

-- 
Drop the alphabet for email