RE: full integrity?

From: Zmolek, Andrew (Andrew) ^lt;>
Date: Thu May 23 2002 - 17:33:51 EDT

Aleksandar Gogic wrote:

> I'm more on Eric's side of the argument. It's just
> as effective to say "stuff it", as it is to provide
> false information, in terms of privacy protection at
> least.

Only if you believe you have prevented false information from being injected in the first place. The right metaphor for this is the concept of "universal precautions" used by emergency personnel--you take some simple precautions (face mask, gloves), assuming the patient *might* have AIDS or another blood-communicable disease until proven otherwise; the alternative is to rely on society at large not sending infections your way. In other words, not sending false data and not being overly trusting of data in general are two separate things

And by the way in practice, undercover law enforcement agents will be able lie about location and will do so under the full protection of the law. Nothing we do in the protocol can preclude this use case from being realized.

Received on Thu May 23 17:34:19 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 12:32:23 EST