From: cvs@openprivacy.orgCVS update: openprivacy/htdocs/notes
Date: Tuesday February 27, 19101 @ 21:56
Author: fen
CVSWEB Options: -------------------
Main CVSWeb: http://openprivacy.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi
View this module: http://openprivacy.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi/openprivacy/htdocs/notes
-----------------------------------
Update of /usr/local/cvs/public/openprivacy/htdocs/notes
In directory giga:/home/fen/projects/openprivacy/htdocs/notes
Modified Files:
whitepaper.shtml
Log Message:
added pointer to erights capabilities section
*****************************************************************
File: openprivacy/htdocs/notes/whitepaper.shtml
CVSWEB Options: -------------------
CVSWeb: Annotate this file: http://openprivacy.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi/openprivacy/htdocs/notes/whitepaper.shtml?annotate=1.26
CVSWeb: View this file: http://openprivacy.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi/openprivacy/htdocs/notes/whitepaper.shtml?rev=1.26&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
CVSWeb: Diff to previous version: http://openprivacy.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi/openprivacy/htdocs/notes/whitepaper.shtml.diff?r1=1.26&r2=1.25
-----------------------------------
Index: openprivacy/htdocs/notes/whitepaper.shtml
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Tue Feb 27 2001 - 21:56:01 PST
diff -u openprivacy/htdocs/notes/whitepaper.shtml:1.25 openprivacy/htdocs/notes/whitepaper.shtml:1.26
--- openprivacy/htdocs/notes/whitepaper.shtml:1.25 Tue Feb 27 10:39:03 2001
+++ openprivacy/htdocs/notes/whitepaper.shtml Tue Feb 27 21:56:01 2001
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff">
- <!-- $Id: whitepaper.shtml,v 1.25 2001/02/27 18:39:03 fen Exp $ -->
+ <!-- $Id: whitepaper.shtml,v 1.26 2001/02/28 05:56:01 fen Exp $ -->
<h1>OpenPrivacy - Building a Better Internet</h1>
@@ -215,15 +215,20 @@
each nexus of reputation services - generally located one to a
hardware machine - is considered to be a secure computation
environment (or "vat") with respect to itself. <font
- color=red>[present a simple proof that supports this
- claim.]</font> Communications between vats is asynchronous and
- unreliable. Secure streams can be built, analogous to the way in
- which SSL is implemented on top of TCP, which is in turn
- implemented on top of UDP, but are not required for operation.
- While we define the implementation of the communications mechanism
- to be outside the scope of OpenPrivacy per se, we expect that a
- secure, anonymous and uncensorable mechanism such as Freenet, Free
- Haven or Publius would be best suited to the need for robust,
+ color=red>[present a simple proof that supports this claim, see
+ e.g. <i>Distributed Computing in E</i>, <<a
+ href="http://www.skyhunter.com/marcs/ewalnut.html#SEC36">http://www.skyhunter.com/marcs/ewalnut.html#SEC36>>.]</font>
+ Communications between vats are signed and encrypted, but also
+ asynchronous and unreliable. Secure streams can be built,
+ analogous to the way in which SSL is implemented on top of TCP,
+ which is in turn implemented on top of UDP, but are not required
+ for operation. Note that communication channels and communicating
+ objects themselves can gain or lose reputation capital according
+ to their reliability and speed. While we define the
+ implementation of the communications mechanism to be outside the
+ scope of OpenPrivacy per se, we expect that a secure, anonymous
+ and uncensorable mechanism such as those that Freenet, Free Haven
+ or Publius provide would be best suited to the need for robust,
distributed and private communications.
</p>
</blockquote>